'BS\505 

.8.^33 


THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 


!*     OCT  13  1909 
THE 


HEBREW    PROPHET 


LORING   W.    BATTEN,    Ph.D.,  S.T.D. 

RECTOR   OF    ST.    MARK's   CHURCH,    NEW   YORK 

SOMETIME    PROFESSOR    OF    THE    OLD   TESTAMENT   LANGUAGES 

AND    LITERATURE    IN    THE 

PHILADELPHIA    DIVINITY   SCHOOL 


NEW   YORK 
THE   MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

1905 


First  Published  in  igog 


PREFACE 

"  T  T  cannot  be  too  often  repeated,"  says  Professor 
1  Ottley  in  his  Bampton  Lectures,  "  that  prophecy 
is  the  dominant  and  distinctive  element  in  Israel's 
religion."  That  is  true  of  Israel's  religion  at  its 
best ;  for  the  highest  expression  of  religion  in  Israel 
is  found  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets.  In  other 
places  we  find  ethical  and  theological  ideas  which 
require  to  be  explained  as  due  to  the  natural  state 
of  things  in  a  primitive  condition  of  religion.  But 
in  the  prophets  we  rarely  find  statements  which  do 
not  stand  good  to-day.  Indeed,  the  woes  of  the 
prophets  were  chiefly  due  to  the  fact  that  they  were 
advanced  too  far  beyond  their  time.  The  prophetic 
religion  always  soared  far  above  the  popular  religion  ; 
hence  the  antagonism  which  the  great  seers  always 
had  to  face.  A  people,  like  an  individual,  can  never 
be  known  until  seen  at  their  best.  To  see  the 
best  in  the  religious  life  of  the  people  of  Israel, 
therefore,  we  must  study  the  prophets. 

But  the  Hebrew  prophet  was  not  a  mere  teacher 
of  religion  in  the  narrower  sense.     GOD  created  the 


vi  PREFACE 

body  as  well  as  the  soul,  the  world  and  all  that 
grows  thereon  as  well  as  spirits.  GOD  is  the  author 
of  vegetable  and  animal  as  truly  as  of  spiritual  life. 
God  is  concerned  that  man  should  not  only  love 
Him  with  heart,  mind,  and  soul,  but  also  that  he 
should  love  his  neighbour  as  himself.  Therefore 
God's  interest  in  man  and  in  the  world  is  broad 
indeed.  Not  a  sparrow  falls  to  the  ground  without 
our  Father. 

The  prophet  was  in  a  measure  cognisant  of  that 
great  truth,  which  has  been  too  much  ignored  by 
the  Christian  world,  absorbed  in  the  notion  that 
God's  only  concern  was  to  get  men  into  heaven, 
or  to  damn  them  in  hell.  Hence  the  prophet  was 
a  statesman,  a  sociologist,  a  political  economist,  as 
well  as  a  theologian  and  a  moralist :  hence  that 
broad  interest  of  the  prophet  in  all  the  affairs  of 
men. 

It  is  not  to  be  overlooked,  however,  that  prophecy 
in  the  person  of  Isaiah  is  a  very  different  institution 
from  what  it  was  in  the  person  of  Samuel.  The 
Old  Testament  writers,  or  the  final  editors  of  those 
writings,  and  still  more  their  modern  interpreters, 
have  done  much  to  confuse  the  development  which  is 
so  marked  a  characteristic  of  prophecy.  I  have  tried 
to  show  something  of  the  course  of  this  progress,  or 
at  least  to  tell  my  story  in  such  a  way  as  to  make 
evident  the   development.      Still,  I   have  not   been 


PREFACE  vii 

satisfied  to  indulge  in  such  a  radical  handling  of  the 
sources  as  some  writers  have  done.  For  I  have 
followed  the  principle  that  the  statements  of  the 
Bible  are  to  be  accepted,  certainly  until  we  see  con- 
vincing reasons  to  the  contrary. 

The  reader  will  note  that  there  is  a  certain  amount 
of  repetition,  which  my  method  of  treatment  has 
rendered  necessary.  Some  few  passages,  like  the 
story  of  Micaiah,  and  Amaziah's  attempt  to  silence 
Amos,  illustrate  a  number  of  points  in  prophecy,  and 
so  I  have  not  hesitated  to  use  them  a  second  or  even 
a  third  time.  But  I  have  endeavoured  to  limit  the 
repetition  to  the  material,  and  not  allow  it  to  extend 
to  the  treatment  also.  The  quotations  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  occasionally  from  the  Revised  Versions, 
English  or  American  ;  but,  as  a  rule,  I  have  preferred 
to  make  my  own  translations. 

In  conclusion,  I  should  like  to  say  that  I  have 
expended  a  large  amount  of  labour  on  this  volume, 
and  yet  I  only  hope  that  its  perusal  may  give  to  the 
reader  the  same  great  pleasure  which  its  writing  has 
given  to  the  author. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER   I 

PAGE 

The  Popular  Conception  of  the  Prophet    .       .        i 


CHAPTER   H 
Revelation  to  the  Prophet    .  .  .        ,      17 

CHAPTER   III 
The  Prophetic  Institution     .  .  .       .      27 

CHAPTER   IV 
The  Sons  of  the  Prophets     .  .  .       .      42 

CHAPTER  V 
The  Prophet's  Call    .  .  •  •       •      73 

CHAPTER   VI 
The  Prophet's  Credentials     .  .  .       .    105 

CHAPTER  VII 
The  Writings  of  the  Prophets  .  .       .    138 


X  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   VIII 

The  Prophet's  Relation  to  the  State  page 

I.    Before  Amos  .  .  .       .    i6i 

CHAPTER   IX 

The  Prophet's  Relation  to  the  State 

II.   Amos  to  Isaiah        .  .  .       .    197 

CHAPTER  X 

The  Prophet's  Relation  to  the  State 

III.    Jeremiah  to  Zechariah        .  .       .    239 

CHAPTER  XI 

The  Prophet's  Relation  to  the  Church 

I.   The  Early  Period  .  .  .       .    271 

CHAPTER  XII 

The  Prophet's  Relation  to  the  Church 

II.    Isaiah  to  Joel         .  ...    290 

CHAPTER  XIII 
The  Prophet's  Vision  .  .  .       •    317 

Additional  Notes       .  .  •  •       •    33^ 

Index  of  Subjects       .  .  ...    346 

Index  of  Scripture  Passages  .  ...    349 


THE 

HEBREW    PROPHET 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  POPULAR  CONCEPTION  OF  THE 
PROPHET 

KNOWLEDGE  in  its  completest  form  is  the 
result  of  observation  and  interpretation,  and 
therefore  the  combined  product  of  science  and  philo- 
sophy. Great  reputations  are  justly  attained  either 
by  the  discovery  of  new  facts,  or  by  the  new  inter- 
pretation of  facts  already  known.  The  man  of 
science  is  pre-eminently  the  man  of  observation,  and 
he  is  ever  on  the  search  for  new  facts.  Some  scientists, 
indeed,  scarcely  ever  get  beyond  the  gathering  of  data. 
Others  have  little  interest  in  a  work  dealing  so  much 
with  petty  minutiae ;  they  prefer  to  give  their  minds 
to  the  penetration  of  the  meaning  of  the  facts  dis- 
covered by  others.  But  the  best  scientist  works 
along  both  lines  :  he  discovers  a  fact  hidden  from  a 
gaze  less  keen  than  his  own,  and  then  places  his  fact 
in  relation  to  other  facts,  so  as  to  grasp  its  signifi- 
cance.    Indeed,  his   perception    of  the    meaning   of 

B 


2  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

things  is  a  large  element  in  his  ability  to  discover 
them. 

The  philosopher  is  the  interpreter,  and  yet  he  is 
not  merely  a  reasoner.  He  must  also  possess  a 
wide  and  accurate  knowledge  of  facts.  The  more 
comprehensive  this  knowledge,  the  more  likely  he  is 
to  be  true  in  his  reasoning.  But  he  does  not  become 
a  philosopher  until  he  begins  to  interpret.  His  busi- 
ness is  to  tell  the  meaning  of  phenomena.  The  well- 
rounded  man  must  be  more  or  less  expert  in  both 
observation  and  interpretation.  He  may  at  times 
use  one  faculty,  at  other  times  the  other.  The 
philosopher  must  occasionally  be  a  scientist,  and  the 
moment  the  scientist  begins  to  draw  inferences  from 
his  observed  facts  he  becomes  in  turn  a  philosopher. 

The  Hebrew  prophet  was  a  man  of  God,  but  he 
was  also  both  a  scientist  and  a  philosopher ;  hence 
he  was  popularly  regarded  as  pre-eminently  a  man 
of  knowledge.  We  look  upon  the  finished  product 
of  prophecy  at  its  highest  stage  of  development,  that 
is,  in  the  works  of  such  prophets  as  Amos  or  Isaiah, 
and  we  call  the  prophet  pre-eminently  a  teacher  of 
righteousness.  But  the  primitive  Hebrew  did  not  set 
value  upon  the  seer  on  account  of  his  knowledge 
of  right  and  wrong,  nor  of  his  personally  high 
character,  but  on  account  of  his  knowledge  of 
mysteries  which  it  greatly  concerned  man  to  under- 
stand, and  which  yet  were  hidden  from  the  eyes  of  all 
but  few. 

Man  could  not  be  an  intelligent  being  without 
perceiving  that  his  life  was  strangely  surrounded  by 
mysteries.     Questions   such   as    these   began    to   be 


POPULAR   CONCEPTION  3 

asked  with  great  insistence.  Whence  came  the 
world  and  the  Hfe  which  is  upon  it?  What  are  the 
sun  and  moon  and  stars?  Why  does  it  rain  or 
blow  ?  Where  is  the  object  that  was  lost  and  cannot 
be  found  ?  What  will  be  the  outcome  of  any  par- 
ticular undertaking  ?  Shall  one  recover  from  a  sick- 
ness, or  die  ?  There  has  ever  been  a  passion  on  the 
part  of  man  to  try  to  penetrate  the  mystery  which 
shuts  in  his  life,  and  there  probably  always  will  be. 
The  answer  to  these  and  innumerable  similar  ques- 
tions has  always  been  persistently  sought.  The 
Hebrew  looked  to  the  prophet  as  the  one  raised  up 
of  God  to  solve  the  problems  with  which  his  life 
brought  him  face  to  face. 

A  sharp  line  of  distinction  has  been  drawn  between 
the  natural  and  the  supernatural.  It  is  a  curious  fact 
that  this  line  has  been  persistently  cherished  both  by 
scientists  on  the  one  side  and  by  theologians  on  the 
other.  The  scientist  has  been  contented  to  confine 
himself  within  the  boundaries  of  the  natural,  and  has 
become  so  distrustful  of  the  knowledge  of  the  super- 
natural claimed  by  theologians,  that  he  has  become 
sceptical  in  that  sphere,  and  has  been  wont  to  label  it 
unknown  and  unknowable.^  The  fatal  mistake  of 
the  theologian  was  the  admission  of  the  line  of  demar- 
cation. But  such  a  mistake  was  not  made  by  the 
Hebrew  prophet.  He  was  readily  credited  with 
power  to  perceive  facts  in  the  supernatural  realm  as 

^  Lately  there  has  been  a  gratifying  change  in  the  attitude  of  scientists 
towards  religious  questions.  They  have  learned  that  their  so-called 
natural  realm  does  not  embrace  the  whole  of  life,  and  they  have 
admitted  it  with  characteristic  frankness. 


4  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

well  as  to  grasp  the  hidden  meaning  of  the  natural. 
The  prophet  believed  that  all  his  powers  were  given 
of  God,  and  he  never  troubled  himself  to  label  them 
as  human  or  superhuman.  His  knowledge  was 
trustworthy  because  given  of  God,  and  he  was  not 
concerned  with  the  question  whether  it  was  a  direct 
revelation  or  the  Divine  awakening  of  his  natural 
powers.  The  sooner  we  get  back  to  the  prophet's 
position,  the  better  for  our  religion. 

Taking  the  supernatural  out  of  the  Bible  is  a  pro- 
cess much  feared  in  modern  days  ;  but  the  prophet 
would  scarcely  have  understood  the  alarm.  One 
person  holds  it  as  his  opinion  that  Elisha  found  the 
axe  which  had  fallen  into  the  water  by  the  miracle  of 
making  the  iron  to  swim  ;  another  believes  that  he 
recovered  it  by  feeling  for  it  on  the  bottom  with  the 
stick  which  he  had  taken  pains  to  cut.  The  latter 
view  would  be  still  accounted  a  dangerous  error  by 
some ;  but  to  the  Hebrew  one  method  was  as  much 
the  work  of  the  man  of  God  as  the  other.  The 
sacred  writer  has  left  the  story  ^  so  that  either  of  the 
above  views  is  a  possible  interpretation.  The  historian 
recorded  the  facts^  but  stated  no  opinion. 

The  prophet  was  the  man  who  had  eyes  to  see  and 
ears  to  hear.  For  every  such  person  there  is  a  world 
of  knowledge  undreamed  of  by  duller  souls.^  The 
ability  to  see  and  hear  was  not  looked  upon  by  either 
the  one  who  possessed  it,  or  by  those  who  honoured 

^  2  Kings  vi.  6. 

^  This  is  what  our  Lord  meant  when  He  said  to  His  disciples, 
"  Blessed  are  your  eyes,  for  they  see  :  and  your  ears,  for  they  hear  " 
(Matt.  xiii.   i6). 


POPULAR   CONCEPTION  5 

its  possession  in  others,  as  a  natural  gift,  in  the  sense  / 
of  being  common  to  all  men.  It  was  a  distinctive  i 
mark  of  an  office,  and  a  direct  gift  of  God.  The 
prophet  saw  because  God  opened  his  eyes  ;  he  heard 
because  God  opened  his  ears.  Yet  the  endowment 
of  the  prophet  with  knowledge  was  similar  to  the 
endowment  of  the  judge  with  judgment,  or  the 
warrior  with  courage  and  skill.  All  these  gifts  came 
from  the  same  source ;  God  revealed  His  secrets  to 
the  prophet,  gave  wisdom  to  the  judge,  and  "  taught 
the  hero's  hands  to  war,  and  his  fingers  to  fight."  ^ 

Some  illustrations  will  best  show  the  popular  con- 
ception of  the  prophet,  and  the  kind  of  knowledge 
which  he  possessed,  or  was  thought  to  possess. 
Whenever  one  desired  information  about  a  matter 
beyond  his  own  ken,  he  was  wont  to  go  to  the 
prophet,  because  of  his  belief  that  nothing  was  too 
hard  for  his  powers.  An  article  might  be  lost ;  but 
it  was  still  in  existence,  and  might  be  recovered  if 
one  knew  where  to  look.  God  always  knew,  and 
though  His  knowledge  was  not  directly  available  by 
the  loser,  it  was  indirectly  available,  because  the 
prophet  was  possessed  of  the  mind  of  God. 

Kish's  asses  had  strayed,^  and  he  followed  the 
usual  course  of  sending  someone  to  hunt  for  them. 
A  three  days'  search  failed  to  trace  the  lost  animals. 
Saul  was  about  to  give  up  and  return  home,  thinking 
he  had  spent  enough  time  in  the  search.  But  Saul's 
servant  reminded  him  that  they  were  near  Ramah,^ 
where  dwelt  Samuel  the  seer.  Finding  they  had 
a  suitable  fee,  they  went  to  the  city  to  inquire  of  the 

^  Ps.  cxliv.  I.  "^  I  Sam.  ix.  ^  See  additional  note  (i). 


6  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

man  of  God.  They  applied  to  him,  not  because  they 
deemed  it  possible  that  he  had  seen  the  asses,  or  had 
been  told  their  whereabouts  by  one  who  had  seen 
them,  but  because  of  their  conviction  that  there  was 
no  limit  to  the  seer's  knowledge.  They  were  not 
mistaken  ;  for  Samuel  told  them  directly  that  the 
asses  had  been  found. 

Another  illustration  is  afforded  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Jesus  was  eating  in  the  house  of  Simon  the 
Pharisee.^  A  prostitute  came  in  and  anointed  the 
feet  of  Jesus.  She  was  a  stranger  to  Him,  but 
Simon  knew  her,  or  at  all  events  knew  her  character. 

The  Pharisee  sees  in  the  incident  a  test  of  his 
guest,  which  he  at  first  believes  Him  unable  to  meet. 
"  This  man,  if  he  were  a  prophet,"  thus  Simon  spake 
within  himself,  "  would  have  perceived  who  and  what 
manner  of  woman  this  is  which  toucheth  him,  that 
she  is  a  sinner.  "^  Whether  a  woman  of  this  kind 
was  as  easily  recognisable  then  as  now  I  do  not 
know.  But  the  Pharisee  argues  that  if  Jesus  were  a 
prophet.  He  would  be  able  to  discern  the  woman's 
true  character  with  Divine  insight,  and  would  have 
spurned  her  from  His  presence.  Her  reputation 
might  be  concealed  from  the  ordinary  man,  but  not 
from  a  prophet. 

By  the  exercise  of  his  peculiar  gifts  the  prophet 
was  able  to  penetrate  artificial  disguises  which  would 
easily  enough  deceive  another.  Jeroboam  was 
greatly  concerned  to  know  the  issue  of  the  sickness 
with  which  his  child  was  laid   low.^     He  dare  not 

'  Luke  vii.  36  ft'.  -  Luke  vii.  39. 

^  I  Kings  xiv.  i  ff. 


POPULAR   CONCEPTION  7 

himself  face  the  prophet  whose  counsel  he  had 
flagrantly  disregarded,  so  he  sent  his  wife  to  ask 
Ahijah's  prognosis.  The  king  seems  to  have  felt 
apprehension  of  the  prophet's  insight,  and  to  have 
blindly  striven  against  it ;  though  he  knew  that 
Ahijah  was  blind,  he  bade  his  wife  disguise  herself. 
Man  is  prone  to  deceive  himself  when  he  can  deceive 
no  one  else.  As  the  queen  approached  the  threshold, 
however,  her  true  personality  was  perceived  by  the 
prophet,  blind  though  he  was,  and  he  greeted  her 
accordingly :  "  Come  in,  wife  of  Jeroboam  ;  why 
feignest  thyself  to  be  a  stranger  ? "  ^  As  if  there 
might  be  a  misapprehension  as  to  the  source  of  this 
insight,  the  historian  tells  us  expressly  that  Jahveh 
advised  the  prophet  of  the  queen's  coming  in  dis- 
guise. But  that  is  only  the  writer's  way  of  telling  us 
that  the  prophet's  knowledge  was  due  to  a  divinely 
given  perception. 

The  mysteries  of  the  past  were  as  open  to  the 
prophet  as  those  of  the  present.  The  first  Hebrews 
to  tell  of  the  origin  of  the  world  were  not  scientists, 
but  prophets — a  fact  which  should  never  be  dis- 
regarded by  the  interpreter.  The  nicest  illustration 
of  the  prophet's  knowledge  of  the  past  is  found  in 
the  New  Testament.  Jesus  was  speaking  with  the 
Samaritan  woman  at  the  well  of  Sychar,^  and  in- 
cidentally laid  bare  the  dark  facts  of  her  past  life. 
As  soon  as  she  heard  this  story,  which  she  assumed 
that  He  could  know  in  no  ordinary  way,  she  ex- 
claimed, "  Sir,  I  perceive  that  Thou  art  a  prophet,"  ^ 

^   I  Kings  xiv.  6.  -  John  iv.  5  ft". 

^  Tohn  iv.  19. 


8  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

and  adroitly  shifted  the  subject  of  conversation.  The 
ability  which  Jesus  had  shown  of  relating  accurately 
the  events  of  her  career,  His  knowledge  of  which  she 
regarded  as  supernatural,  was  proof  positive  that  He 
was  possessed  of  the  prophetic  gift.  The  insistence 
upon  this  point  is  shown  by  her  comment  to  her 
townspeople  :  "  Come,  see  a  man,  who  told  me  all 
things  that  ever  I  did."  ^ 

But  the  greatest  mystery  of  life  lies  in  the  future. 
We  may  know  a  good  deal  of  the  past  and  present ; 
but  the  future  is  a  blank.  We  should  be  largely 
controlled  in  our  plans  for  the  days  to  come  if  we 
could  know  what  the  outcome  of  those  plans  will 
be.  Sometimes  men  embark  in  an  undertaking  with 
the  surest  indications  of  failure,  as  in  hopeless  wars. 
And  yet  there  is  a  supporting  hope  in  the  feeling 
that  however  preponderant  the  chances  are  against 
success,  it  is  always  possible  that  a  favourable  issue 
will  follow  a  bold  action.  It  is  generally  recog- 
nised that  success  in  life  depends  to  a  considerable 
degree  upon  a  right  forecast  of  the  future.  The 
question  with  a  publisher,  for  example,  cannot  be 
wholly  the  merits  of  the  manuscript  in  his  hands,  but 
must  be  largely  the  probability  that  the  reading  pub- 
lic will  buy  the  book.  The  most  far-sighted  man  in 
any  calling  has  the  greatest  assurance  of  success. 

Virtually  all  theists  believe  that  God  knows  the 
future.  Indeed,  we  may  go  further  and  say  that  the 
belief  is  general  that  God  not  only  knows,  but  also 
controls  the  future.  In  fact,  the  belief  in  God's  fore- 
knowledge  comes   from   the   belief  that  the  future 

^  John  iv.  29. 


POPULAR   CONCEPTION  9 

course  of  events  is  in  His  hands  to  shape  as  He  will. 
The  Hebrews  believed  that  the  Divine  guiding  of 
events  was  more  or  less  arbitrary,  and  that  He  might 
easily  be  induced  to  change  the  course  of  the  world 
in  one  way  or  another.  The  idea  that  God  might 
stay  the  course  of  the  sun  and  moon  that  His  servant 
might  have  adequate  time  to  chastise  his  enemies 
was  no  stumbling-block  to  the  faithful  Israelite. 

Was  it  possible  for  man  to  learn  the  secret  pur- 
poses of  God  ?  For  knowledge  of  the  future  would 
depend  upon  penetrating  the  counsels  of  the  Most 
High.  That  knowledge  would  be  of  incalculable 
value  to  the  people  of  God,  if  it  were  attainable. 
Now  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  prophets  and  people 
alike  believed  that  certain  men  were  given  that  highly 
coveted  knowledge.  A  few  instances  will  make  this 
clear. 

Jahveh  purposed  to  destroy  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
because  of  their  wickedness.  But  the  blow  should 
not  fall  without  warning.  So  Jahveh  said,  "  Shall 
I  hide  from  Abraham  what  I  am  about  to  do  ?  since 
Abraham  shall  surely  become  a  great  and  mighty 
nation,  and  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  shall  be 
blessed  in  him."^  The  belief  that  Abraham  was 
righteous,  known  of  God,  designated  as  the  founder 
of  a  great  nation,  a  prophet,  led  to  the  conviction 
that  God  apprised  him  of  His  intention  to  destroy 
the  cities  of  the  plain. 

The  broadest  statement  of  this  idea  is  found  in  an 
utterance  of  Amos.  This  prophet  was  explaining 
why  he  had  abandoned  his  herd  and  his  sycamore 

'  Gen.  xviii.  17  f. 


lo  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

trees  to  fill  for  a  time  the  office  of  seer.  He  was 
prophesying  because  he  could  not  help  himself. 
Jahveh  had  revealed  to  him  His  intention  to  bring 
punishment  upon  the  Northern  Kingdom.  To  know 
the  mind  of  God  necessitated  action  in  accordance 
with  that  knowledge.  The  specific  case  of  Amos  is 
explained  by  the  general  principle :  "  The  Lord 
Jahveh  will  take  no  action  except  He  disclose  His 
purpose  to  His  servants  the  prophets." ^ 

Attached  to  every  court  was  a  prophet,  or  com- 
pany of  prophets.  Thus  Gad  is  called  "  David's 
seer."  2  The  office  of  such  prophets,  at  least  from 
the  king's  point  of  view,  was  not  primarily  to  teach 
him  right  and  wrong,  though  they  usually  did 
earnestly  strive  to  that  end  ;  but  their  value  to  the 
king  was  conceived  to  be  the  knowledge  of  God's 
purposes  which  they  possessed,  especially  their 
information  about  the  future.  Sometimes  the 
prophet  takes  the  initiative  and  tells  the  king  the 
course  of  action  which  will  lead  to  success  and 
honour.  Thus  Deborah  tells  Barak  that  "Jahveh 
will  sell  Sisera  into  the  hand  of  a  woman." ^  But 
often  the  king  consulted  the  prophet  before  embark- 
ing on  an  important  undertaking.  The  illustrations 
of  this  function  of  the  prophet  are  very  numerous,  and 
they  show  the  firm  conviction  that  the  prophets  did 
know  the  mind  of  God.     Two  examples  will  suffice. 

David  became  discontented  because,  while  he  had 
built  a  house  for  himself,  sumptuous  for  the  times, 
the  sacred  ark    of  Jahveh  was    still   sheltered  in  a 

'  Amos  iii.  7.     See  additional  note  (2).  ^  1  Chron.  xxi.  9. 

■^  Judges  iv.  9. 


POPULAR   CONCEPTION  ii 

tent.  The  time  seemed  to  have  come  when  the 
symbol  of  the  Divine  presence,  which  had  been 
necessarily  carried  about  from  place  to  place  while 
the  people  had  no  fixed  centre,  should  now  be  finally 
located  at  the  newly  established  capital,  and  should 
be  appropriately  housed.  But  the  king  would  not 
think  of  undertaking  such  a  great  and  revolutionary 
project  without  assurance  that  his  purpose  would 
harmonise  with  the  will  of  God,  and  that  he  would 
consequently  be  enabled  to  carry  it  to  completion. 
To  learn  this  he  goes  to  His  prophet.  At  first 
Nathan  approved  the  plan,  but  was  led  afterwards  to 
change  his  counsel,  and  say  that  God  did  not  ap- 
prove of  the  king's  purpose,  but  that  the  building  of 
the  temple  should  be  left  for  David's  son.^ 

Ahab  grieved  over  the  loss  of  Ramoth-gilead, 
which  had  been  wrested  from  his  kingdom.  A 
patriotic  people  always  mourn  the  loss  of  territory, 
and  lament  the  fate  of  their  compatriots  when  they 
are  attached  to  a  foreign  rule.  This  is  especially  the 
case  if  a  section  is  annexed  by  a  people  deemed 
inferior.  Ahab  felt  that  his  kingdom  had  suffered 
loss,  and  that  the  Ramoth-gileadites  had  suffered  loss 
by  their  annexation  to  a  people  of  another  and 
inferior  religion.  He  believed  the  time  auspicious 
to  recover  the  lost  city.  Especially  did  the  plan 
augur  success  by  reason  of  the  alliance  with  Jehosha- 
phat,2  the  king  of  Judah,  and  the  agreement  of  the 
latter  to  join  in  the  campaign.    But  it  was  manifestly 

^  2  Sam.  vii.     On  this  passage,  see  further  in  chapter  xiii. 
'^  Jehoshaphat   was    really   the   vassal   of   Ahab.       See   further   in 
chapter  iv. 


12  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

desirable  to  know  in  advance  whether  the  expedition 
would  end  in  success  or  failure.  That  was  known  to 
God,  and  was  believed  to  be  ascertainable  by  man  ; 
therefore  Jehoshaphat,  who  was  a  God-fearing  man, 
notwithstanding  his  unholy  alliance  with  Ahab,  said 
to  the  king  of  Israel,  "  Inquire  first,  I  pray  thee,  for 
the  word  of  Jahveh."^  A  difference  of  opinion  de- 
veloped between  the  royal  company  of  prophets  and 
Micaiah,  of  which  I  shall  have  more  to  say  later,  but 
Ahab  preferred  the  counsel  most  in  accord  with  his 
own  wishes,  and  therefore  set  out  on  a  campaign 
which  proved  disastrous,  the  king  being  killed  and 
the  allied  armies  completely  routed.  The  forecast 
of  Micaiah  was  proved  fully  correct. 

The  prophet  not  only  knew  the  facts  which  were 
hidden  from  other  men,  but  he  also  was  judged  to 
know  the  meaning  of  facts  ;  for  there  are  things 
plain  enough  as  facts,  but  mysterious  in  meaning. 
He  not  only  had  powers  of  observation  unknown 
to  others,  but  he  was  possessed  also  of  a  philosophy 
more  than  human.  Thus  the  prophet  was  required 
for  the  interpretation  of  any  unusual  event,  in- 
explicable to  the  ordinary  human  mind.  To  the 
God-fearing  Hebrew  there  were  no  accidents  in  the 
government  of  the  world.  God  held  every  natural 
force  in  His  easy  control.  Extraordinary  events 
were  not  the  result  of  Divine  caprice,  but  had  a 
meaning  and  a  purpose.  It  was  necessary  to  dis- 
cern this  meaning  and  purpose,  that  the  people  might 
turn  the  event  to  their  good,  or  at  least  keep  it  from 
doing  harm. 

^  I  Kings  xxii.  5. 


POPULAR   CONCEPTION  13 

In  the  days  before  the  monarchy,  the  Israelites 
were  mightily  oppressed  by  the  Philistines.  Every 
attempt  to  break  their  fetters  resulted  in  riveting 
them  the  tighter.  The  question  was  inevitably 
asked  why  the  people  whom  God  had  rescued  from 
bondage  in  Egypt  should  be  enslaved  again  in  Pales- 
tine. The  fact  was  plain  enough,  but  the  meaning 
of  the  fact  was  a  mystery.  Then  Samuel  the  young 
seer  came  forward  with  the  key  to  the  problem. 
The  sins  of  the  people  caused  their  misfortunes.  If 
they  would  hope  to  win  a  victory,  they  must  be  able 
to  engage  in  the  fight  under  Jahveh's  almighty  pro- 
tection.^ This  great  boon  could  only  be  had  on  the 
condition  of  righteousness.  The  people  followed 
Samuel's  advice  to  put  away  the  heathen  worship  in 
which  they  had  freely  indulged,  and  then  they  de- 
feated their  dreaded  foe  at  the  battle  of  Ebenezer.^ 

The  mysterious  fact  might  be  a  natural  phen- 
omenon. In  post-exilic  days  there  was  a  great 
drought  and  a  visitation  of  locusts.  The  pastures 
were  burned  up  ;  the  streams  were  dry  ;  swarm  after 
•'  swarm  of  the  dread  locusts  swept  over  the  land, 
destroying  everything  that  was  green.  Why  did 
God  use  His  people  so  ill  ?  How  did  it  happen  that 
Jahveh  made  Israel  a  reproach  to  his  neighbours? 
These  are  questions  which  only  a  prophet  is  com- 
petent to  answer,  and  Joel  attempts  to  penetrate  the 
meaning  of  these  things  in  the  book  which  bears  his 
name. 

There  was  a  current  belief  that  the  prophet  not 
only  could  know  the  future,  but  could  also  control 

^  I  Sam.  vii.  3.  ^  i  Sam.  vii.  1 1  f.  j 


14  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

its  issues.  It  would  be  of  little  use  to  foresee 
coming  events  unless  in  some  way  the  knowledge 
could  be  turned  to  advantage,  so  that  evil  might 
be  averted  and  good  assured.  Joseph  interprets 
Pharaoh's  dream  as  a  prediction  of  the  seven  years 
of  plenty  followed  by  seven  years  of  famine.^  The 
seer  not  only  comprehends  the  portent  of  the  dream, 
but  he  also  sees  how  this  knowledge  may  be  turned 
to  good  account,  though  the  preparation  for  the 
future  requires  no  supernatural  wisdom. 

The  prophet  usually  does  not  share  the  popular 
belief  that  he  can  control  the  coming  events  by 
virtue  of  any  knowledge  or  power  peculiar  to  him. 
Balak,  the  king  of  Moab,  sent  far  away  for  Balaam 
the  prophet,-  not  because  he  wished  to  know  what 
the  future  relations  between  Moab  and  Israel  would 
be,  for  he  can  himself  see  that  clearly  enough ;  but 
he  summons  the  prophet  because  of  his  belief  that 
he  had  power  so  to  wither  Israel  by  a  curse  that  the 
invading  nation  would  be  powerless  for  harm. 
Balaam  strenuously  insisted  from  first  to  last  that 
he  had  no  power  to  change  the  purpose  of  God,  and 
that  no  inducement  would  persuade  him  to  pretend 
to  a  power  he  did  not  possess.  "If  Balak  should 
give  me  his  house  full  of  silver  and  gold  I  could  not 
go  beyond  the  word  of  Jahveh  my  God."^  The 
prophet  was  no  fatalist ;  but  he  knew  that  the  future 

^  Gen.  xli. 

"^  Paton  gives  plausible  reasons  for  identifying  Balaam  with  Bela 
the  son  of  Beor,  a  king  of  Edom,  mentioned  in  Genesis  xxxvi.  32.  See 
his  Syria  and  Palestine,  p.  152  f.  Does  this  mean  that  Balaam  the 
king  was  invited  to  bring  more  effective  succour  to  Moab  than  curses  ? 

^  Num.  xxii.  18. 


POPULAR   CONCEPTION  15 

was  in  God's  hands,  and  that  to  change  the  future, 
one  must  change  the  purpose  of  God,  and  that  could 
be  done  only  by  changing  the  conditions  which  con- 
strained Him  to  act  for  the  weal  or  woe  of  the 
nation. 

There  may  be  apparent  exceptions,  but  they  will 
not  bear  the  test  of  a  careful  examination.  The  case 
of  Elisha  in  the  wilderness  of  Edom,  for  example,^ 
is  not  an  exception  to  the  principle  just  stated,  as 
a  hasty  glance  will  suffice  to  show.  The  allied 
armies  are  on  the  point  of  perishing  for  lack  of 
water.  The  king  of  Israel  does  no  more  than  be- 
wail his  unhappy  fate  and  cast  reproach  upon  God. 
Perhaps  he  had  already  tried  the  resources  of  his 
hundreds  of  subservient  prophets  and  found  no  com- 
fort, Jehoshaphat  asked  for  a  prophet  of  Jahveh, 
believing  that  by  his  aid  the  armies  might  be  extri- 
cated from  their  perilous  position.  Elisha  is  sum- 
moned, and  indignantly  declares  that  Jahveh  would 
not  regard  the  danger  of  the  Hebrews  except  for  the 
presence  of  the  pious  king  Jehoshaphat,  The 
minstrel  is  called  upon  to  play,  and  under  this 
stimulus  the  prophet  predicts  that  the  trenches 
which  he  orders  to  be  made  shall  be  filled  with 
water ;  and  it  happens  in  accordance  with  his  pre- 
diction. But  Elisha  does  not  really  pretend  to  a 
power  by  which  he  could  fill  the  trenches  with  life- 
saving  water,  but  only  declares  the  purpose  of 
Jahveh  to  save  the  king  of  Judah,  The  seer  could 
learn  what  God's  purpose  was,  but  his  foresight  had 
no   effect   upon   its    accomplishment,   except    as    it 

'  2  Kings  iii. 


i6  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

influenced  man  so  to  act  as  to  make  serviceable  the 
favourable  disposition  of  God. 

I  have  gone  into  the  common  conception  of  a 
prophet  fully,  because  of  the  general  belief  now  that 
the  primary  function  of  the  prophet  was  to  teach  the 
people  to  do  the  will  of  God.  That  the  great 
prophets  were  teachers  of  righteousness  is  beyond 
question.  That  God  sent  them  into  the  world  for 
that  purpose  is  told  again  and  again  in  the  Bible, 
and  is  not  to  be  doubted  for  a  moment.  But  I  am 
speaking  of  the  conception  of  the  prophets  as  it  was 
among  their  contemporaries.  The  people  looked 
upon  the  prophets  as  men  possessed  of  superhuman 
powers,  and  especially  of  superhuman  knowledge, 
and  it  was  this  ability  to  know  the  otherwise  un- 
knowable which  gave  them  their  position  in  the 
nation. 


CHAPTER    II 
REVELATION   TO   THE   PROPHET 

FROM  the  eighth  to  the  fourth  century  B.C.  the 
prophet  was  a  conspicuous  figure  in  Hebrew 
Hfe.  By  the  eighth  century  the  office  was  fully 
developed  and  perfectly  understood.  But  it  did  not 
attain  its  exalted  station  without  a  long  preliminary 
course  of  growth.  We  must  trace  the  growth  from 
the  primitive  beginning,  and  see  how  it  came  to  reach 
its  peculiar  influence  and  power. 

It  may  be  noted  here  that  the  prophet  was  not 
a  figure  peculiar  to  Israel,  and  unknown  to  other 
nations.  In  ancient  times  every  nation  had  its 
prophets,  and  there  were  many  features  common  to 
them  all.  And,  for  that  matter,  every  nation  has 
its  prophets  still.  The  Hebrew  prophet  was  differ- 
entiated from  other  prophets  in  many  respects,  and 
yet  was  similar  to  those  of  other  peoples.^  When 
Balak,  the  king  of  Moab,  desired  the  services  of  a 
seer,  he  sent  to  the  Euphrates  for  Balaam.-  Balaam 
certainly  was  not  a  Hebrew,  yet  his  story  is  told  in 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  without  any  intimation  that 

^  See  Briggs,  Messiatiic  Prophecy,  p.  i8  (ed.  1886).  The  lowest 
forms  of  Hebrew  prophecy  were  most  akin  to  that  of  other  peoples. 
Other  nations  had  few  Isaiahs,  but  Balaams  were  found  among  ihem 
all.  '  Num.  xxii. 

C  17 


i8  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

it  is  the  record  of  an  alien.  Balaam  prophesies  by 
Jahveh,  but  he  would  have  been  the  last  one  whose 
services  Balak  would  have  desired,  had  the  king 
supposed  him  in  any  way  affiliated  with  Israel. 
Among  the  Hebrews,  however,  prophecy  was  de- 
veloped to  a  point  which  it  never  reached  in  any 
other  nation,  and  our  concern  now  is  to  follow  the 
course  of  that  development. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  prophet  was  re- 
garded as  essentially  one  possessed  of  knowledge 
which  could  only  come  from  God.  The  path  of  the 
development  of  Hebrew  prophecy  is  roughly  marked 
by  the  manner  in  which  God's  will  was  revealed. 
We  find  that  revelation  coming  to  man  in  theo- 
phanies,  dreams,  visions,  ecstatic  states,  and  in  direct 
spiritual  enlightenment. 

In  the  most  primitive  conception  of  God,  He  is 
represented  as  coming  to  earth  and  speaking  to  man 
face  to  face.  God  walks  in  the  garden  in  the  cool  of 
the  day  and  calls  for  the  hiding  man  and  woman.^ 
God  speaks  to  Noah  to  warn  him  of  the  coming 
flood.2  So  God  spoke  to  Abraham,  and  to  other 
patriarchs.  Jacob  named  a  place  Peniel,  because 
there  he  had  met  God  face  to  face.^  Moses  was  the 
last  to  whom  God  spoke  in  this  way.  In  his  case 
the  direct  revelation  is  looked  upon  as  an  unusual 
mark  of  Divine  favour :  "  Jahveh  spoke  unto  Moses 
face  to  face,  as  a  man  speaks  to  his  friend " ; *  "a 
prophet  has  not  yet  risen  in  Israel  like  Moses,  whom 
Jahveh  knew  face  to  face."  ^ 

'  Gen.  iii.  8,  9.  ^  Gen.  vi.  13.  ^  Gen.  xxxii.  30. 

*  Exod.  xxxiii.  II*.  '  Deut.  xxxiv,  10. 


REVELATION  TO  THE  PROPHET   19 

In  the  larger  number  of  theophanies,  Jahveh  Him- 
self does  not  appear,  but  sends  an  angel  to  carry 
His  message  to  man.  The  angel  of  Jahveh  found 
Hagar  in  the  wilderness,  and  sent  her  back  to  submit 
to  her  mistress.^  An  angel  meets  Balaam  on  his 
way  to  Balak  and  warns  him  not  to  go  beyond  the 
word  of  Jahveh.-  Frequently  there  is  a  confusion  in 
the  story,  the  messenger  being  called  at  one  moment 
an  angel,  at  another  Jahveh  Himself.  God  directly 
commands  Abraham  to  offer  his  son ;  but  at  the 
altar  it  is  an  angel  who  bids  him  stay  his  hand.^  In 
the  story  of  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
we  read  that  three  men  came  to  Abraham  ;  then  that 
Jahveh  Himself  asks  why  Sarah  laughed  ;  then  that 
two  angels  visit  Lot  to  get  him  out  of  the  doomed 
city.*  In  the  story  of  Gideon  we  are  told  that  the 
angel  of  Jahveh  came  to  arouse  the  hero  to  drive  out 
the  oppressing  Midianites  ;  a  few  verses  further  on 
we  read  that  Jahveh  turned  to  him  and  directed  him 
to  deliver  His  people.^  In  the  old  stories  it  is  the 
usual  thing  to  identify  the  angel  or  messenger  of 
Jahveh  with  Jahveh  Himself.^  To  these  writers  there 
was  no  essential  difference  between  Jahveh  and  His 
messengers. 

One  would  scarcely  claim  to-day  that  these  stories 
are  to  be  taken  as  strict  records  of  fact.  It  is  alto- 
gether unbelievable  that  God  ever  walked  upon  the 
earth  or  spoke  to  any  person,  as  one  man  speaks  to 
another.     The  higher  truth  was  finally  stated  in  the 

^  Gen.  xvi.  7  ft".  ^  Num.  xxii.  35.  ^  Gen.  xxii.  i-ii. 

*  Gen.  xviii.  1-13  ;  xix.  i.  '  Judges  vi.  11-14. 

^  Moore's  "Judges,"  va  Interjiational  Critical  Coiiifiientary,  p.  183. 


20  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Gospel :  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time."  ^ 
But  we  need  not  on  that  account  discredit  the  narra- 
tives altogether.  It  is  certainly  historical  that  Gideon 
led  his  people  against  the  Midianites  ;  but  it  is  clear 
that  while  the  inspiration  to  lift  up  his  hand  against 
the  oppressor  came  from  God,  the  message  from  God 
did  not  come  by  word  of  mouth.  There  are  state- 
ments in  many  good  historical  narratives,  whether 
ancient  or  modern,  sacred  or  profane,  which  indicate 
the  writer's  opinions  rather  than  actual  occurrences. 
The  careful  student  must  learn  to  distinguish  opinions 
from  facts,  and  not  to  reject  facts  because  he  cannot 
accept  the  opinions  with  which  they  are  accompanied  ; 
nor,  on  the  other  hand,  must  he  feel  bound  to  believe 
the  opinions  because  stated  in  connexion  with  trust- 
worthy facts. 

Rightly  understood,  these  stories  are  peculiarly 
serviceable  for  the  purpose  we  have  in  view.  What- 
ever we  may  hold,  the  earliest  writers  of  Israel 
certainly  believed  that  God  spoke  face  to  face  with 
man,  and  this  primitiv^e  conception  of  Divine  revela- 
tion is  what  I  wish  to  show.  With  the  advance  in 
religious  culture,  we  hear  no  more  of  appearances  of 
Jahveh.  But  the  belief  in  the  appearance  of  angels 
as  the  messengers  of  God  persisted  even  through 
New  Testament  times,  and  was  held  by  the  early 
Christians  as  steadfastly  as  by  the  early   Hebrews. 

Very  little  need  be  said  here  about  revelation  by 
dreams.  Yet  the  dream  has  a  distinct  place  in  a 
treatment  of  the  method  of  prophetic  revelation. 
From    Deuteronomy   xiii.    i,   it    appears    that    the 

^  John  i.  i8  ;  see  also  the  same  idea  stated  by  Jesus  in  John  vi.  46. 


REVELATION   TO   THE   PROPHET     21 

dreamer  of  dreams  was  looked  upon  even  as  the 
prophet,  as  a  person  to  whom  the  will  of  God  might 
be  revealed.  The  patriarchal  stories  are  full  of 
dreams,  which  the  patriarchs  showed  a  notable 
ability  to  interpret.  At  the  Egyptian  court  there 
were  wise  men,  one  of  whose  functions  was  the 
interpretation  of  dreams.  Joseph's  skill  as  a  dream 
interpreter  gave  him  his  exalted  place  in  the  land  of 
Pharaoh,^  to  which  greatness  his  own  early  dreams 
of  the  sheaves  -  had  already  pointed.  The  dream  is 
used  but  little  by  the  later  and  great  prophets, 
though  persisted  in  by  the  sons  of  the  prophets. 
Like  the  speaking  with  tongues  in  New  Testa- 
ment times,  the  revelation  by  dreams  seems  to  have 
been  discredited  by  abuse.  Jeremiah  says  that  the 
lying  prophets  were  going  about  with  the  cant 
phrase,  "  I  have  dreamed,  I  have  dreamed."^ 

It  is  a  matter  of  interest  that  in  the  Hexateuch 
revelation  by  dreams  is  characteristic  of  the  so-called 
Elohist,  and  the  stories  of  God's  speaking  directly  to 
men  of  the  Jahvist.  These  two  methods  of  revela- 
tion may  therefore  represent  not  so  much  stages  of 
actual  development  as  the  different  points  of  view 
among  the  early  sacred  writers.  Still  it  is  plain  that 
the  Jahvist  generally  gives  the  more  primitive  con- 
ceptions of  religion. 

The  dream  belongs  to  the  primitive  age  of  Hebrew 
life,  while  the  vision,  which  Delitzsch"*  rightly  calls 
a  higher  step  in  revelation,  is  found  chiefly  in  a  later 
period.     The  vision  begins  when  the  dream  leaves 

^  Gen.  xli.  ^  Gen.  xxxvii.  ^  Jer.  xxiii.  25. 

■*  Commentary  on  Genesis  ii. ,  p.  3. 


22  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

off.  But  the  two  are  not  altogether  mutually  ex- 
clusive, for  the  dream  plays  a  prominent  part  in 
Daniel,  and  even  has  a  place  in  the  New  Testament ; 
Joseph  was  warned  in  a  dream  to  flee  to  Egypt.^ 
The  vision  is  mentioned  on  the  other  hand  in  con- 
nexion with  Abram^  and  Jacob.^  There  is  not 
always  a  strict  differentiation,  for  Samuel's  revelation 
in  the  night  was  by  a  dream,  yet  it  is  called  a  vision. 
The  frequent  expression,  "  visions  of  the  night," 
probably  refers  generally  to  dreams.  But  the  vision 
is  found  in  connexion  with  prophecy  at  its  highest 
stage  of  development.  In  fact,  the  term  "vision"  is 
from  the  same  root  as  "  seer,"  *  the  old  name  for 
prophet.  The  dream  belongs  to  any  individual  to 
whom  God's  revelation  might  come ;  the  vision  is 
limited  for  the  most  part  to  the  prophetic  order. 

Vision  is  used  frequently  as  a  technical  name  for 
the  prophetic  revelation,^  or  for  a  particular  message, 
as  the  announcement  to  Samuel  of  the  fall  of  Eli's 
house.^  Even  the  greatest  of  the  prophets  received 
his  call  in  a  vision.^  The  vision  is  found  in  several 
cases  in  the  New  Testament.  Zacharias  saw  a  vision 
in  the  temple  when  the  birth  of  John  Baptist  was 
announced.^  Visions  were  the  means  of  revelation 
to  Ananias,  Cornelius,  Peter.^  Paul  himself  calls 
the  appearance  of  Jesus  on  the  way  to  Damascus 
a  vision.  ^"^ 

A  characteristic  of  the  early  revelations,  especially 

1  Matt.  ii.  13.  -  Gen.  xv.  i.  ^  lb.,  xlvi.  2. 

"*  Or  more  accurately,  one  of  the  Hebrew  terms  for  "seer,"  nTH. 

^  Isa.  i.  I  ;  Obad.  I  ;  Nahum  i.  i. 

*  I  Sam.  iii.  15.  ^  Isa.  vi.  *  Luke  i.  22. 

'  Acts  ix.  10;  X.  3,  17.  1"  Acts  xxvi.  19. 


REVELATION  TO  THE  PROPHET  23 

by  theophanies  and  dreams,  is  that  they  were  given 
for  the  sake  of  the  individual  who  received  them. 
The  Lord  speaks  to  Noah  that  he  may  save  himself 
in  the  ark.  Joseph's  dreams  foreshadow  his  own 
brilliant  career.  In  the  more  highly  developed  forms 
of  revelation,  God's  will  is  disclosed  through  the 
prophet  for  the  sake  of  the  people,  not  for  himself. 
In  many  cases,  in  fact,  the  giving  of  God's  message 
involves  great  peril  to  the  messenger ;  but  God's 
concern  was  to  save  the  people,  even  though  His 
instruments  were  destroyed  in  the  process. 

The  ecstatic  state  is  another  way  in  which  the 
Divine  knowledge  was  supposed  to  be  conveyed  to 
man.  The  case  of  Balaam  is  the  classical  example. 
The  history,  it  is  true,  contains  no  express  allusion  to 
such  an  ecstasy.  But  there  are  some  decisive  hints. 
Balaam's  first  attempt  to  curse  Israel  resulted  in 
forecasting  the  nation's  great  numerical  strength. 
Balak  thought  that  the  prophet  was  unduly  influenced 
by  the  sight  of  the  whole  Israelite  camp ;  he  there- 
fore took  him  to  a  place  whence  he  could  see  but  a 
small  part  of  the  people.  This  influence  is  most 
simply  explained  on  the  supposition  that  Balaam 
uttered  his  oracles  while  in  a  state  of  frenzy.  More- 
over, the  prophet  seems  not  to  have  known  in  advance 
what  his  utterances  would  be ;  they  were,  in  fact, 
quite  contrary  to  what  he  desired.  In  one  of  the 
oracles  we  have  allusions  to  "  the  visions  of  the 
Almighty"  seen  by  the  seer.^  Then  the  prophet  is 
described  as  "  falling  down,  and  having  his  eyes 
open."     Altogether  it  is  plain  that  he  was  in  that 

^  Num.  xxiv.  4. 


24  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

state  of  ecstasy  which  was  regarded  as  a  favourable 
condition  for  prophesying  among  all  nations  of  the 
world. 

When  Elisha  was  called  upon  to  rescue  the  armies 
from  their  perilous  position  in  Edom,  and  he  desired 
to  seek  counsel  of  Jahveh,  he  calls  for  a  minstrel,  at 
whose  playing  it  would  be  possible  for  him  to  reach 
that  exalted  state  in  which  a  revelation  was  most 
likely  to  come.  That  is  clearly  the  meaning  of  the 
statement,  "  And  it  was  as  the  minstrel  played,  that 
the  hand  of  Jahveh  came  upon  him. "  ^  This  is  the 
condition  of  the  prophets  of  Baal,  leaping  and  gash- 
ing themselves  with  knives  as  they  cried,  "  O  Baal, 
hear  us ! "  ^  and  also  of  king  Saul  when  in  his  frenzy 
he  lay  down  naked  all  day  and  all  night.^ 

The  Hebrews  were  themselves  well  aware  of  a 
higher  form  of  revelation  than  that  by  dreams  or 
ecstatic  visions.  They  always  looked  back  to  Moses 
as  one  possessed  of  God's  revelation  in  its  highest 
form,  and  he  is  set  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  ordinary 
prophets  of  the  time  :  "  If  there  be  a  prophet  among 
you,  I  will  make  Myself  known  unto  him  in  a  vision. 
I  will  speak  with  him  in  a  dream.  My  servant 
Moses  is  not  so  .  .  .  with  him  I  will  speak  mouth  to 
mouth."  * 

The  knowledge  given  to  Moses  is  distinguished  by 
its  clearness  and  definiteness  as  contrasted  with  the 
obscurer   dreams   and   visions.     To   some   prophets 

^  2  Kings  iii.  15.  "  i  Kings  xviii.  28.  ^  i  Sam.  xix.  24. 

■*  Num.  xii.  6  ff.  The  text  is  corrupt  in  this  passage,  but  the 
corruption  does  not  affect  the  general  sense  as  rendered  above.  For 
emendations,  see  Dillmann  in  loc. ;  and  Gray,  Numbers,  p.  124  ft". 


REVELATION    TO   THE   PROPHET     25 

God  revealed  His  will  directly ;  not  when  they  were 
asleep,  or  worked  up  to  a  state  of  ecstasy,  but  when 
they  were  most  self-possessed.  This  highest  phase 
has  been  called  direct  spiritual  enlightenment. 

Spiritual  enlightenment  is  the  common  method  of 
revelation  to  the  great  prophets  of  the  golden  age  of 
Israel's  religious  development.  To  Amos,  Isaiah,  and 
the  others  of  their  kind,  God  did  not  appear  as  a 
bodily  presence,  nor  did  He  send  them  vague  dreams 
to  perplex  the  mind.  Occasionally  they  saw  strange 
visions,  which  they  interpreted  as  conveying  a  Divine 
message  to  the  people.  But  generally  God  put  His 
Spirit  into  their  hearts,  and  thus  they  were  endowed 
with  a  knowledge  of  the  Divine  will  which  gave  them 
a  strength  of  conviction  otherwise  impossible. 

It  has  sometimes  been  supposed  that  the  various 
phases  of  prophecy  show  a  gradual  decline  in  the 
manner  of  revelation.  Modern  criticism  has  enabled 
us  to  estimate  the  primitive  traditions  at  their  true 
value,  and  to  see  that  there  was  a  steady  progress 
upward  rather  than  downward.  It  was  possible  for 
Isaiah  to  know  the  mind  of  God  more  fully  than 
Deborah  or  Samuel,  because  he  lived  in  a  more  en- 
lightened age,  and  knew  better  than  to  consult  the 
dead  on  behalf  of  the  living.^  The  men  of  the 
prophetic  period  had  learned  that  the  clearest  Divine 
knowledge  comes  directly  to  the  soul,  and  not  through 
the  medium  of  dreams  or  portents. 

It  should,  however,  be  borne  in  mind  that  we  are 
not  to  question  the  genuineness  of  a  revelation  by 
dream  or  theophany  because  of  its   medium.     Men 

^  Isa.  viii.  19. 


26  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

believed  that  God  spoke  to  them  face  to  face  or  in 
other  primitive  ways.  God  has  always  been  wont  to 
reveal  Himself  to  man  in  whatever  ways  man  was 
able  to  understand.  But  in  the  lower  form  the  possi- 
bility of  error  is  so  great  that  every  instance  must 
be  judged  on  its  merits.  Primitive  man  generally 
believed  that  the  dream  was  an  objective  reality.  To 
dream  of  hearing  God  speak  was  actually  to  hear 
Him.   To  see  God  in  a  vision  was  to  see  Him  really.^ 

Abraham  was  firmly  convinced  that  God  com- 
manded him  at  first  to  sacrifice  Isaac  and  then  to 
substitute  the  ram.  We  see  in  the  whole  story  the 
Divine  teaching  of  the  great  lesson  so  clearly  taught 
by  a  late  prophet  that  the  fruit  of  one's  body  was  no 
expiation  for  the  sin  of  one's  soul.'^ 

The  message  which  a  man  read  in  his  dream  or 
vision  was  not  always  just  what  God  intended  ;  still 
it  was  often  a  groping  after  the  truth  which  pointed 
the  way  to  a  higher  conception. 

The  progressive  character  of  the  revelatory  methods 
is  perceptible  from  the  seer's  ability  to  command  them. 
One  can  have  but  little  control  over  his  dreams. 
Visions  may  be  largely  self-induced.  The  aid  of  a 
minstrel  or  dancing  or  singing  will  generally  bring 
on  the  ecstatic  state,  at  least  to  the  person  practised 
in  the  art.  The  direct  spiritual  enlightenment  is 
always  available  for  one  who  has  eyes  to  see  and  ears 
to  hear.  Balaam  must  sleep  over  the  problem  in- 
volved in  Balak's  request ;  Isaiah  could  answer  his 
problems  immediately. 

^  See  article  "  Dream,"  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary. 

"  Micah  vi.  7.     See  Newman  Smyth,  Christian  Ethics,  p.  161. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  PROPHETIC  INSTITUTION 

WE  turn  now  to  the  development  of  Hebrew 
prophecy  as  an  institution.  The  institution 
is  not,  however,  uniform  and  simple,  but  varied  and 
complex.  We  shall  best  be  able  to  cover  the  ground 
by  dividing  the  prophets  into  two  classes.  In  one 
class  we  include  Samuel,  Nathan,  Elijah,  Amos, 
Hosea,  Isaiah,  and,  in  fact,  the  whole  line  of  great 
men  who  lived  and  prophesied  as  independent  in- 
dividuals. The  other  class  is  composed  of  the  so- 
called  "  sons  of  the  prophets,"  whose  operations  were 
conducted  in  companies,  and  who  belonged  to  a  fixed 
order.  This  latter  class  will  be  reserved  for  con- 
sideration in  the  next  chapter. 

When  we  speak  of  the  prophets  we  usually  mean 
the  men  of  the  first  class,  and  they  are  indeed  men 
worthy  of  the  distinction  accorded  by  the  name. 
They  were  men  pre-eminent  in  their  day,  and  held  a 
high  place  among  the  great  men  of  Israel.  They 
maintained  their  greatness  because  they  were  free 
and  independent,  preserving  their  individuality  to  the 
utmost.  We  rarely  find  them  working  together. 
Even  when  they  belonged  to  the  same  time  and 
place,  they  co-operate  so  little  that  it  is  not  easy  to 
determine  their  relation.     Isaiah  and  Micah,  for  ex- 

27 


28  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

ample,  prophesied  to  the  people  of  Judah  at  the 
same  period.  It  is  frequently  assumed  that  Micah 
was  a  disciple  of  his  greater  contemporary.  But 
there  is  no  sure  warrant  for  this  assumption.  These 
men  worked  always  as  individuals,  never  as  members 
of  an  institution.  Nevertheless,  the  great  prophets 
had  so  much  in  common  that  we  may  for  convenience 
speak  of  them  as  an  order.  The  history  of  this  order 
may  readily  be  traced  from  its  lowly  origin  to  a 
position  of  great  influence  and  power,  and  then  again 
through  a  stage  of  decline  to  its  final  disappearance. 

If  we  read  the  Old  Testament  in  the  traditional 
way,  prophecy  seems  to  go  backward  rather  than 
forward.  That  conception  is  not  to  be  pronounced 
a  priori  impossible,  but  is  nevertheless  untenable, 
because  it  is  contrary  to  historic  facts.  To  those 
facts  we  now  turn.  Moses  stands  as  a  great  figure 
at  the  very  beginning  of  Hebrew  history ;  and  in 
later  ages  he  was  deemed  the  first  and  the  greatest 
prophet.  Many  centuries  after  his  time  it  was  de- 
clared that  "  no  prophet  like  Moses  had  since  risen 
in  Israel."^  Nothing  higher  could  be  said  even  of 
the  Messianic  prophet  than  that  he  would  be  like 
Moses  :  "  A  prophet  from  thy  midst,  of  thy  brethren, 
like  unto  me,  shall  Jahveh  thy  God  raise  up  for 
thee."  2  St.  Peter  quoted  this  prophecy  as  fulfilled 
in  Jesus  Christ.^  But  was  the  greatest  prophet  at 
the  beginning? 

Modern  criticism  has  enabled  us  to  read  the  early 
history  of  Israel  in  a  truer  light  than  was  formerly 

^  Deut.  xxxiv.  lo.  *  Deut.  xviii.  15. 

^  Acts  iii.  22. 


THE   PROPHETIC    INSTITUTION       29 

possible.  Some  scholars  have,  indeed,  gone  to  ex- 
tremes in  recasting  the  early  history  ;  nevertheless, 
some  reconstruction  is  inevitable.  The  work  of 
Moses  is  now  known  to  be  very  different  from  what 
our  fathers  supposed.  A  vast  amount  of  tradition 
has  gathered  about  his  great  name.  But  sound 
critical  opinion  rather  confirms  the  greatness  of  the 
famous  refugee  who,  under  the  guidance  of  Jahveh, 
led  his  people  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  who  did 
so  much  to  place  the  institutions  of  Israel  on  a  solid 
foundation.  Moses  may  loosely  be  called  a  prophet,^ 
but  his  chief  functions  were  not  prophetic.  He  was 
careful  to  provide  a  successor,  but  he  chose  a  man 
qualified  for  military  leadership,  as  the  times  de- 
manded, rather  than  for  prophetic  guidance.  Moses 
is  called  a  prophet  only  in  the  later  writers.  Even 
in  the  priestly  writing,  Aaron  is  appointed  to  be 
Moses's  prophet ;-  but  the  word  as  there  used  means 
no  more  than  spokesman  or  mouthpiece.  Therefore 
prophecy  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have  begun  with 
the  great  law-giver. 

The  Hebrews  came  to  believe  in  the  course  of 
time  that  prophecy  was  as  old  as  the  world. 
Zacharias  sang  in  his  Benedictus — 

"  As  He  spake  by  the  mouth  of  His  holy  prophets 
Which  have  been  since  the  world  began." ^ 

St.  Peter  uses  the  same  words  in  his  speech  in  / 
Solomon's  porch."*  Long  before  the  time  of  the  I 
apostle,    Hebrew    writers    had     applied    the    term    • 

^  Art.  "  Prophetic  Literature,"  jEwt-^f.  BibL 

2  Exod.  vii.  X.  2  Luke  i.  70.  *  Acts  iii.  21, 


30  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

prophet  to  their  heroes,  even  to  Abraham  ;^  but 
they  were  certainly  speaking  from  the  point  of  view 
of  their  own  day,  not  from  the  condition  of  the 
time  of  Abraham.  St.  Peter  showed  that  he  was 
possessed  of  an  idea  of  the  prophetic  institution 
which  was  more  in  accord  with  the  records  of  his 
people.  In  the  address  already  cited  he  says,  "  All  the 
prophets  from  Samuel  and  them  that  followed  after, 
as  many  as  have  spoken,  they  also  told  of  these 
days."  2  Samuel,  not  Moses,  is  deemed  the  founder 
of  the  prophetic  order.  This  suggestion  is  worthy 
of  most  careful  consideration.  Samuel  was  not  only 
a  conspicuous  figure  in  early  Israel,  but  he  was  also 
the  first  prophet  of  whom  we  have  any  adequate 
knowledge. 

The  books  of  Samuel  are  composite,  some  of  the 

documents  being  very  old,  others   belonging   to   a 

period  long  after  the  time  of  Samuel.     In  one  of  the 

earliest    documents    we    find    an    old    gloss,   which 

nevertheless  proves  to  be  an  important  and  trust- 

r  worthy  archaeological  note  :  "  Formerly  in  Israel,  the 

man  who  went  to  inquire  of  God,  said  thus  :  Come 

I  and  let  us  go  to  the  seer :  for  he  that  is  now  called 

*  the  prophet  was  formerly  called  the  seer."^     It  is 

quite  impossible  to  determine  when  this  gloss  was 

written.     Whenever  it  was,  prophet  was  the  current 

name  for  the  man  of  God,  and  seer  had  gone  out  of 

common  use.    But  the  writer  positively  identifies  the 

familiar  office  of  the  prophet  with  the  obsolete  office 

of  the  seer.     There  may  have  been  certain  changes 

^  Gen.  XX.  7.  ^  Acts  iii.  24. 

^  I  Sam.  ix.  9.     See  additional  note  {3). 


THE   PROPHETIC    INSTITUTION       31 

in  the  office  as  it  developed,  but  to  this  writer  the 
prophets  were  the  successors  of  the  seers.  Let  us 
see  if  his  statement  may  be  verified. 

The  term  prophet  is  applied  to  Abraham,^  Moses,^ 
Aaron,3  Eldad  and  Medad/  Miriam,^  and  to  Samuel.*' 
There  is  no  evidence,  though,  that  the  name  was  in 
use  in  the  days  of  those  to  whom  it  is  given.  All 
of  the  writings  in  which  this  term  is  used  are  later 
than  Samuel. 

There  are  two  Hebrew  words  for  seer — hozeh  and 
ro'eh.     The  former  is  never  applied  to  Samuel  ;  the^ 
latter  is  rarely  applied  to  anyone  else.'^ 

The  first  occurrence  of  seer  is  in  i  Samuel  ix.  9, 
and  the  term  is  applied  to  many  later  persons.  In 
I  Chronicles  xxix.  29,  we  find  all  three  terms  for 
prophet  applied  to  different  men  :  "  Samuel  the  seer 
{ro'eh),  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  Gad  the  seer" 
{hor^eli).  In  Isaiah  xxx.  10,  the  two  words  for  seer 
are  applied  to  different  classes :  "  that  say  to  the 
seers  {ro'im)  see  not,  and  to  the  prophets^  {hoaitn), 
prophesy  not  unto  us  right  things."  Amos  is  called 
a  seer  by  the  priest  Amaziah.  The  same  term  is 
generally  applied  to  the  earlier  men  of  God,  and 
broadly  speaking,  the  gloss  states  the  matter  cor- 
rectly. It  is  certain  that  "  prophet"  persisted,  while 
"  seer  "  dropped  out  of  common  use. 

^  Gen.  XX.  7,  ^  Deut.  xxxiv.  10.  ^  Exod.  vii.  i. 

•*  Num.  xi.  26  ff.  '  Exod.  xv.  20.  '  i  Sam.  iii.  20. 

"  The  only  exception  is  Hanani  (2  Chron.  xvi.  7).  In  2  Samuel 
XV.  27,  the  word  is  applied  to  Zadok,  according  to  the  English  transla- 
tion ;  but  that  rendering  is  clearly  wrong,  and  the  text  is  certainly 
corrupt.     See  proposed  emendation  in  Budde,  Biicher  Samuel^  in  loc. 

^  This  is  the  only  place  in  the  English  versions  where  hozeh  is 
rendered  prophet.     That  is  because  we  have  no  other  word  for  seer. 


32  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

This  stage  in  the  history  of  Hebrew  prophecy 
gives  us  a  starting-point  from  which  we  may  trace 
our  way  forward  with  certainty.  For  Samuel's  age 
and  all  later  times  we  have  good  historical  sources, 
even  if  sometimes  the  information  is  meagre.  For 
the  period  before  Samuel  we  have  but  scanty  in- 
formation, and  the  sources  need  to  be  carefully 
sifted  in  order  to  make  sure  that  the  writer  does 
not  ascribe  to  the  early  days  conditions  existing 
in  his  own,  but  unknown  to  the  age  of  which  he 
writes.  We  still  speak  of  the  stationary  East,  and 
assume  that  what  is  seen  there  to-day  has  always 
been  so.  Many  historical  writers,  like  the  Chronicler, 
fell  into  the  same  fallacy.  Institutions  with  which 
they  were  familiar  were  so  permanent  that  they 
seemed  always  to  have  been,  and  the  historians 
jumped  to  the  conclusion  that  they  had  always 
existed.  It  was  a  natural  mistake  for  one  living  in 
the  prophetic  age,  himself  endowed  with  the  pro- 
phetic spirit,  to  infer  that  prophets  had  existed  from 
the  beginning. 

The  age  of  Samuel  marks  a  great  transition  in  the 
development  of  Hebrew  life  in  the  broadest  sense. 
A  more  settled  order  was  brought  in  by  his  adminis- 
tration. Before  his  day  was  over  the  monarchy  was 
securely  established,  so  that  it  survived  to  the  exile. 
The  people  took  up  permanent  abodes  and  occupa- 
tions. The  days  of  wandering  were  giving  place  to 
a  period  of  settled  life  and  fixed  occupation.  The 
popular  desire  for  a  king  shows  the  growing  sense 
among  the  people  that  a  more  centralised  rule  was 
necessary.     The  new  condition  of  the  prophetic  life 


THE   PROPHETIC    INSTITUTION       33 

was  a  part  of  a  general  movement  touching  the 
whole  life  of  the  people.  The  rising  against  the 
Philistines,  which  was  largely  due  to  prophetic  insti- 
gation, made  a  new  era  possible. 

Before  the  time  of  Samuel,  prophecy  was  at  most 
occasional  and  crude.  The  description  in  i  Samuel 
iii.  I,  "The  word  of  Jahveh  was  precious  in  those 
days  ;  there  was  no  widespread  vision,"  ^  was  equally 
applicable,  so  far  as  we  know,  to  any  previous  period.' 

Priest  and  prophet  were  not  sharply  differentiated.— 
Samuel  himself  exercised  the  functions  of  both  offices, 
and  probably  many  of  his  predecessors  had  held  the 
same  double  office.  The  judges  exercised  prophetic 
as  well  as  political  powers.  The  fact  that  "  all  Israel 
from  Dan  even  to  Beersheba  knew  that  Samuel  was 
established  to  be  a  prophet  of  Jahveh,"-  shows  that 
a  new  order  of  things  existed,  and  yet  that  the 
prophet  was  not  an  unknown  figure.  Whatever  in- 
formation the  early  Hebrews  may  have  had,  however,  / 
we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  they  have  passed  \ 
on  very  little  knowledge  of  those  early  times  to  us.         J 

There  are  some  hints  of  those  who  may  be  called 

^  This  verse  has  perplexed  the  commentators.  Smith  says  :  "  The 
quaUfying  word  ('widespread')  may  mean  public  or  widespread,  but 
there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  the  original  reading  is  lost "  {Int.  Crit. 
Coin.,  in  loc).  The  passage,  however,  yields  a  good  sense:  "The 
word  of  Jahveh  was  weighty  [i.e.  influential]  in  those  days,  because 
there  was  no  general  vision."  In  the  writer's  time,  seers  were  numerous 
and  visions  were  multiplied  ;  but  their  counsel  was  not  followed.  In 
the  days  of  Samuel,  seers  were  unusual,  and  their  words  had  great  in- 
fluence. Men  had  particular  visions  of  import  to  themselves  ;  but 
prophecies  conducive  to  the  general  welfare  were  almost  unknown. 
The  new  phase  of  prophecy  is  the  appearance  of  a  man  of  God 
whose  messages  are  given  for  the  good  of  the  people. 

"^  I  Sam.  iii.  20. 
D 


34  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

prophets.  Deborah  is  called  a  prophetess,^  or,  in  the 
older  version  of  the  story ,2  "a  mother  in  Israel." 
We  only  know  of  her  arousing  the  people  to  war 
against  the  invading  Canaanites.  But  as  the  younger 
version  of  the  story  says  that  she  "judged  Israel  at 
that  time,"  ^  it  is  very  likely  that  her  office  was  per- 
manent. Barton  *  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Deborah  sat  under  the  sacred  palm,  and  that  the 
proximity  to  the  tree  helped  her  inspiration.  But 
Moore  ^  holds  that  iv.  5  is  added  by  a  later  editor,  and 
that  we  should  emend  the  text  of  verse  4,  and  render, 
"delivered  Israel  at  that  time,"  referring  to  this 
particular  event.  The  name  "  mother  in  Israel,"  as 
commonly  interpreted,  implies  a  permanent  place  of 
influence ;  but  as  this  term  occurs  elsewhere  only 
in  2  Samuel  xx.  19,  where  it  means  a  city,  it  has 
been  held  that  a  town  is  meant  here.^  Whether  her 
functions  were  only  for  the  time  or  not,  Deborah's 
act  was  regarded  as  inspired  of  God,  and  she  was 
therefore  looked  upon  as  a  prophetess. 

It  is  said  that  Jahveh  sent  a  prophet  (whose  name 
is  not  given)  to  the  Israelities  to  reproach  them  for 
disobedience.'''  Likewise  "a  man  of  God"  was  sent 
to  Eli^  to  declare  the  downfall  of  his  house  and  to 
give  the  reason  therefor.^ 

From  such  instances  it  is  possible  that  there  were 

^  Judges  iv.  4.         ^  Judges  v.  7.  ^  Judges  iv.  4. 

■•  A  Sketch  of  Setjtitic  Origins,  p.  89. 

'  "Judges," /«A  Cfit.  Com.,  p.  113;  Nowack,  in  loc. 

®  See  Moore  on  v.  7.  "^  Judges  vi.  8.  ^  i  Sam.  ii.  27. 

"  Stade  says  :  "These  anonymous  men  of  God  are  everywhere  the 
creations  of  later  redactors"  {Geschichte,  i.  182 n).  Such  an  opinion 
may  not  be  altogether  disregarded. 


THE   PROPHETIC    INSTITUTION       35 

prophets   in   early   Israel   of  whom  no   mention    is 
made.     But  so  far  as  we  know,  there  was  no  man  in 
those  days  whose  whole  life  was  given  to  the  pro- 
phetic office.     Judges,  priests,  and  others  now  and 
again  received  messages  from  God,  and  were  accord- 
ingly called  prophets.    Amos  bears  striking  testimony    1 
to  the  fact  that  prophecy  had  a  real  place  in  the  ages    ! 
preceding  his  own  :  "  I  raised  up  of  your  sons  for 
prophets,  and  of  your  young  men  for  Nazirites"  ;^  but    , 
his  words  may  apply  to  persons  already  known  to  us.    / 

I   am  well  aware  of  the  difference   between   the 
view  of  Samuel's  prophetic  work,  set   forth  above,' 
and  that  of  Budde,^  and  other  writers. 

Budde  divides  the  books  of  Samuel  into  the  older  . 
and  later  narratives.  Such  a  division  is  essential  to 
the  right  reading  of  the  history.  But  Budde  accepts 
the  statements  of  the  older  sources  and  generally 
discredits  the  rest.  We  are  much  indebted  to  this 
accomplished  scholar  for  his  valuable  contributions 
to  the  early  history ;  but  it  seems  to  me  more  reason- 
able to  credit  the  later  sources  except  in  so  far  as  they 
contradict  the  statements  of  the  earlier,  or  describe 
conditions  inconsistent  with  them.  The  earliest 
history  is  most  likely  to  be  accurate,  but  is  not 
necessarily  so.  i  Samuel  vii.,  for  example,  describing 
the  efforts  of  the  Israelites  to  throw  off"  the  oppres- 
sive Philistine  bondage  under  Samuel's  leadership, 
belongs  to  the  late  sources ;  therefore  Budde  rejects 
it.  But  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why 
Samuel  may  not  have  persuaded  the  people  to  try 

^  Amos  ii.  II. 
See  his  Religion  of  Israel  to  the  Exile,  p.  93  ff. 


36  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

to  drive  out  their  foe,  even  if  his  success  was  Hmited. 
The  partial  failure  of  this  attempt  would  explain 
Samuel's  next  move,  which  was  to  make  a  more 
stable  combination  of  the  tribal  forces  under  the 
head  of  a  Benjamite  king. 

According  to  the  older  source,  which  Budde  seems 
to  accept,  "  Samuel  is  only  a  priest  and  seer  of  the 
old  type  in  an  Ephraimite  country  town."  He  finds 
confirmation  of  Samuel's  obscurity  in  the  fact  that  a 
person  like  Saul  had  not  heard  of  him.  But  Saul's 
servant  knew  his  reputation  as  a  seer,  as  well  as  his 
place  of  residence.  Budde  looks  upon  Saul  as  the 
prophet  of  his  age  rather  than  Samuel.  Of  this  more 
will  be  said  in  the  next  chapter.  But  there  seems  to 
me  to  be  ample  justification  for  the  view  widely  held 
by  Hebrew  writers  that  Samuel  was  a  prophet,  and 
that  of  no  mean  order. 

After  Samuel's  time  there  is  scarcely  a  period 
during  which  there  was  not  one  or  more  choice  spirits 
called  of  God  who  gave  up  their  lives  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Divine  will  for  the  sake  of  their  fellow- 
men.i 

There  was  an  idea  more  or  less  prevalent  that  the 
office  was  to  be  continuous.  Elijah  was  commanded 
to  set  up  kings  in  both  Syria  and  Israel,  "  and  to 
anoint  to  be  prophet  in  his  place  Elisha,  the  son 
of  Shaphat  of  Abel-meholah."  ^  Not  every  prophet 
after  this   time,  however,   exercised   his   office   per- 

^  Here  again  I  am  constrained  to  depart  from  Budde's  opinion. 
He  distrusts  the  Elijah  stories,  and  has  no  confidence  in  what  is  said 
of  occasional  prophets  in  the  early  part  of  the  Davidic  dynasty  {op.  cit., 
p.  102).  ^  I  Kings  xix.  16. 


THE   PROPHETIC    INSTITUTION       n 

manently.  Even  Amos,  the  first  of  the  literary 
prophets,  was  called  to  prophesy  to  Israel  for  a  brief 
time,  and  then  probably  returned  to  his  herd.  There 
may  have  been  other  instances  of  the  same  kind. 
But  most  of  the  prophets  were  called  to  a  life  office, 
and  were  not  permitted  to  lay  down  their  work,  even 
when  they  grew  weary  of  their  task.  Jeremiah  had 
been  called  upon  to  say  so  much  of  woe  that  he 
resolved  to  speak  no  more  in  the  name  of  Jahveh. 
But  Jahveh  would  not  have  it  so.  The  message  was 
in  the  prophet's  soul,  and  would  be  spoken  even  if  it 
must  burn  its  way  out.^  Jonah  was  unwilling  to  say 
a  word  in  Nineveh  that  might  lead  the  hated  enemies 
of  Israel  to  repentance  and  pardon.  But  his  story  is 
told  to  show  that  God's  will  cannot  be  balked  by 
His  prophets. 

There  were  many  prophets  in  Israel  between 
Samuel  and  Amos  whose  writings  have  not  come 
down  to  us,  if,  indeed,  their  prophecies  were  ever  put 
into  writing  at  all,  but  about  whose  work  we  have 
considerable  information  in  the  historic  books. 
Among  these  may  be  mentioned  such  conspicuous 
examples  as  Nathan,  Gad,  Ahijah,-  Elijah,  Elisha, 
Micaiah,  Ahaziah. 

Their  functions  were  in  part  much  like  those  of 

^  Jer.  XX.  9. 

^  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  there  is  no  mention  of  a  prophet 
during  Solomon's  reign.  Nathan  anoints  him  king,  and  Ahijah 
inspires  Jeroboam  to  wrest  a  large  part  of  the  kingdom  from  Reho- 
boam,  Solomon's  son.  But  there  is  no  record  of  a  prophetic  utterance 
or  act  between  these  two.  Solomon  saw  visions  himself,  and  was  not 
the  kind  of  man  to  invite  or  even  tolerate  interference  from  any 
quarter. 


38  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

the  later  prophets,  except  that  they  seem  to  have 
striven  more  to  lead  the  court  in  the  right  way  than 
to  teach  the  people.  That  inference  is  certainly 
deducible  from  the  records,  but  inasmuch  as  the 
historians  are  concerned  chiefly  with  the  history  of 
the  kings,  they  would  naturally  tell  only  so  much  of 
the  prophet's  story  as  served  their  purpose.  The 
history  of  Isaiah  in  2  Kings  xviii.-xx.  tells  us  nothing 
of  the  prophet's  character  as  a  great  teacher  of  the 
people,  but  only  of  his  office  as  a  prophet  of  the 
court. 

The  golden  age  of  Hebrew  prophecy  begins  with 
Amos  about  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  and 
extends  down  to  the  exile.  Ezekiel,  whose  life  and 
work  were  in  the  land  of  captivity,  already  shows  the 
beginning  of  a  decline.  He  employs  symbols  very 
largely,  and  depends  upon  the  pen  as  well  as  the 
voice.  Moreover,  his  life  was  far  removed  from  the 
stirring  scenes  which  gave  the  prophet  his  great 
opportunity.  In  the  great  unknown  prophet  or 
prophets,  to  whom  we  owe  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.,  we  find 
again,  and  for  the  last  time,  a  prophetic  voice  which 
is  not  shorn  of  its  power.  Joel,  Haggai,  Zechariah, 
Malachi,  and  others  whose  anonymous  work  has 
been  embedded  in  the  writings  of  older  prophets, 
contain  some  passages  of  great  power,  but,  as  a  rule, 
these  are  decidedly  inferior  to  their  great  predecessors 
of  the  Assyrian  age. 

After  Malachi  the  voice  of  prophecy  is  silent  until 

revived  in  John  Baptist.     For  much  of  this  period,  it 

r  is  true,  we  must  argue  from   silence  ;    but  for  the 

L^Maccabean  age  we  have  ample  assurance  that  there 


THE   PROPHETIC    INSTITUTION       39 

was  no  prophet.     The  defiled  altar  was  torn  down,  / 
but  what  to  do  with  the  profaned  stones  was  a  grave 
problem.     The  people  finally  shelved  it  by  laying  the 
stones  in  the   mountain  "  until  there   should   come 
a   prophet   to   give   an    answer   concerning  them."^ 
The  knowledge  required  could  only  come  from  God. 
There  were  priests   at  hand,  but  knowledge  of  the 
Divine  will  was  not  given  to  them.     The  question    , 
was  one  for  a  prophet,  but  the  prophet  was  lacking.  ,' 
As  it  is  pathetically  put  in  one  of  the  Psalms  of  the  J 
period  : — 

"  Our  signs  we  see  not,  nor  is  there  prophet ; 
With  us  is  not  one  that  knows  how  long.""'^ 

In  this  dark  age,  however,  there  was  the  hope  that 
prophetic  voices  would  again  be  heard  in  the  land. 
In  the  gloomy  days  of  the  early  exile,  a  poet  bewails 
the  fact  that  though  prophets  exist,  there  is  no  vision 
from  the  Lord ;  ^  yet  visions  came  in  due  season. 
So  now,  though  there  was  not  even  a  prophet  in 
Judah,  there  was  the  assuring  hope  that  God  would 
send  again  these  chosen  counsellors.  The  Jews  and 
priests  were  ready  to  acknowledge  Simon,  the  brother 
of  Judas  Maccabaeus,  as  leader  and  high  priest,  with 
the  stipulation  that  he  was  to  hold  the  chief  place 
only  until  God  sent  them  a  faithful  prophet.^  Little 
did  those  people  realise  how  long  their  hope  for  the 
reappearance  of  prophecy  would  be  deferred.  This 
incident  marks  the  final  transfer  of  power  from  the 
hands  of  the  prophets  to  those  of  the  priests,  a  subject 
of  which  I  shall  have  more  to  say  hereafter. 

'   I  Mace.  iv.  46.  '  Ps.  Ixxiv.  9. 

^  Lam.  ii.  9.  *  i  Mace.  xiv.  41. 


40  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

There  is  another  class  of  men  who  may  barely  be 
called  prophets,  whom  we  may  mention  for  the  sake 
of  completeness.  These  are  the  authors  of  the 
pseudepigraphic  prophecies,  such  as  the  Assumption 
of  Moses,  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon.  The  study  of  the  written  Word  had 
taken  the  place  of  the  fresh  utterance  from  the 
prophet's  mouth.  The  great  names  of  the  past 
were  highly  venerated.  If  a  real  prophet  had  risen, 
he  would  scarcely  have  been  able  to  get  a  fair  hear- 
ing. His  words  would  have  been  measured,  not  by 
the  standard  of  truth,  but  by  their  agreement  with 
the  written  Law.  That  basis  of  judgment  made 
the  thorny  path  of  John  Baptist,  of  our  Lord  Him- 
self, of  Paul  and  other  apostles,  as  well  as  many  a 
Christian  minister  of  later  ages. 

This  esteem  of  the  written  Law,  which  is  dis- 
played somewhat  wearisomely  in  Psalm  cxix.,  as 
against  the  living  Word,  must  be  given  full  weight, 
or  we  shall  do  injustice  to  the  unknown  authors  of 
apocryphal  books.  Schiirer  expresses  but  a  part  of 
the  truth  when  he  says  that  these  men  "had  no 
longer  the  courage  to  confront  their  contemporaries 
with  the  proud  claim  to  have  their  words  listened  to 
as  the  words  of  God  Himself,  but  who  rather  seemed 
to  think  it  necessary  to  conceal  themselves  under 
the  guise  of  someone  or  other  of  the  acknowledged 
authorities  of  the  olden  time."^  It  is  true  that  a 
prophet  should  boldly  declare  his  message,  whether 
the  people  will  bear  or  forbear ;  but  we  cannot 
blame  these  men  very  severely  that  they  elected  to 

^  Jewish  People,  div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  p.  45. 


THE   PROPHETIC    INSTITUTION       41 

put  forth  their  message  in  a  form  which  would  most 
surely  get  it  a  prompt  hearing,  especially  as  there 
were  then  no  literary  ethics  to  bar  their  way.  We 
should  rather  rejoice  that  in  such  way  as  they  could, 
men  were  still  striving  to  keep  religion  a  vital  factor 
in  Jewish  life.  For  that  was  the  essential  task  of 
the  prophetic  institution. 


CHAPTER   IV 
THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS 

IN  the  time  of  Samuel  a  new  institution  arose 
in  connexion  with  prophecy  which  deserves  a 
further  study  than  has  been  given  to  it  by  any 
writer.  Various  scholars  have  touched  the  subject 
incidentally,  but  an  exhaustive  treatment  is  still  a 
desideratum.  Budde  seems  to  me  to  have  missed 
the  point  by  regarding  these  guilds  as  the  real 
prophets  of  the  early  time,  and  then  to  lose  sight  of 
them  entirely.  I  cannot  treat  the  subject  here  as 
fully  as  is  desirable,  but  shall  attempt  to  gather  the 
essential  facts  and  present  them  in  a  convenient 
form. 

Samuel  directed  the  newly  anointed  Saul  to  return 
to  his  home,  and  said  that  on  his  way  he  would  see 
certain  signs,  among  which  would  be  "  a  band  of 
prophets,  coming  down  from  the  high  place  with 
a  psaltery  and  a  timbrel,  and  a  pipe,  and  a  harp, 
before  them  ;  and  they  will  be  prophesying."^  It  is 
evident  that  this  band  was  a  company  exercising 
a  corporate  rather  than  an  individual  office.  Whence 
did  they  arise  ?     And  what  were  their  functions  ? 

This  is  the  first  mention  of  such  a  body  in  the 

^  I  Sam.  X.  5.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  passage  belongs  to 
the  oldest  part  of  the  narrative  in  the  books  of  Samuel. 

42 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       43 

Old  Testament,  and  there  is  nowhere  a  statement  to 
explain  their  origin.  As  Samuel  was  the  leader  of 
such  a  company,^  it  has  been  frequently  assumed  that 
he  was  the  founder  of  the  order.^ 

In  the  absence  of  further  information,  this  origin 
can  only  be  assumed  as  probable.  It  is  perfectly 
possible  that  such  bands  were  in  existence  even  long 
before,^  though  we  know  nothing  about  them.  In 
that  case  Samuel  would  have  associated  with  this 
order,  just  as  Elisha  did  at  a  later  time. 

But  while  we  have  no  certain  information  as  to 
the  origin  of  these  prophets,  which  is  comparable  to 

^  I  Sam.  xix.  20.  Literally,  "And  Samuel  standing  appointed 
over  them."  The  two  participles  are,  as  Driver  says  (^Heb.  Text  of 
Samuel),  "peculiar  and  suspicious."    H.  P.  Smith  rejects  "standing"  ; 

the  verse  would  then  read,  "And  he  saw  the  band  of  prophets,  and 

Samuel  appointed  over  them."  Paton  says,  "It  is  safe  to  infer  that  ) 
he  organised  the  ecstatics  into  communities,  and  thus  made  their  r 
influence  more  effective"  {Syria  and  Pal.,  p.  173).  It  is  clear  that 
Samuel  was  the  official  head  of  this  company.  Kraetzschmar  holds 
that  Samuel  is  confused  with  the  guild  by  a  very  late  writer  who  no 
longer  understood  the  distinction  between  the  ' '  seer "  and  the  pro- 
phetic bands  [Prophet  iind  Seher  im  alien  Israel,  p.  23). 

"  See,  for  example,  Schultz,  0.  T.  Theology,  i.  240  f.  So  Ottley 
says,  "  It  is  significant  that  Samuel's  distinctive  work  was  the  regula- 
tion and  organisation  of  prophetism"  [Bamp.  Lect.,  p.  270). 

^  Budde  argues  that  the  order  was  new,  since  the  prophets  were 
looked  upon  in  i  Samuel  x.  10  ff  as  something  noteworthy,  and  were  . 
regarded  with  a  certain  distrust  (Bucher  Samuel,  p.  68).  The  elders 
appointed  by  Moses  are  said  to  have  prophesied  as  a  body  when  they 
were  clothed  with  the  Spirit  (Num.  xi.  25).  Such  ravings  as  the  sons 
of  the  prophets  indulged  in  may  be  intended.  Kraetzschmar,  on  the  other 
hand,  holds  that  those  prophets  are  of  Canaanitish  origin,  and  ex- 
plains the  hostility  to  them  on  that  ground.  As  there  were  prophets 
of  some  sort  among  all  the  Semitic  peoples,  the  Hebrews  may  have 
been  influenced  by  their  neighbours.  But  it  is  doubtful  if  the  institution 
was  taken  over  ready-made.  At  all  events,  there  is  not  sufficient 
evidence  for  that  view. 


44  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

the   order   of  the    Nazirites,^   we   have   ground    for 

/  plausible  conjectures.  It  is  not  certain  that  Amos 
refers  to  the  order  when  he  says,  "  I  raised  up  of 

,  your  sons  for  prophets,"  but  it  is  highly  probable. 

'{That  would  show  that  the  order  had  been  established 
long  before  his  day,  and,  in  spite  of  its  degradation, 
was  regarded  as  a  Divine  institution.^  To  Amos  it 
would  seem  perfectly  possible  that  the  institution 
may  have  been  divinely  founded,  even  though  its 
present  representatives  were  so  unworthy. 

It  was  the  custom  of  every  great  prophet  to  gather 
disciples  about  him.  Thus  Elijah  had  Elisha  as  a 
personal  attendant ;  the  latter  had  Gehazi,  as  well  as 
others  of  the  prophetic  order.  Isaiah  had  disciples,^ 
Jeremiah  had  Baruch ;  *  John  the  Baptist  gathered 
disciples  about  him,  and  so  did  our  Lord.  Moreover, 
the  familiarity  of  the  Jews  with  this  custom  is  un- 
mistakably shown  by  the  wrath  of  the  Pharisees 
because  "  Jesus  was  making  and  baptising  more  dis- 
ciples than  John."  ^  Samuel  himself  had  begun  his 
career  as  a  disciple  of  Eli. 

■^  The  most  natural  name  for  such  a  disciple, 
following  good  Hebrew  usage,  would  be  a  son  of  the 
prophet.  Elisha  calls  his  master  "  father."  ^  Samuel 
probably  gathered  many  such  disciples  and  trained 
them  for  special  duties.     It  would  be  inconvenient  to 

^  See  Amos  ii.  ii. 

^  A  fact  which  counts  against  the  Canaanitish  origin. 

^  Isa.  viii.  i6. 

•*  Though  perhaps  he  was  rather  secretary  than  disciple.  Still  he 
read  prophecies  of  his  master  to  the  people,  and  probably  wrote  most 
of  the  biography  of  Jeremiah. 

'^  John  iv.  I.  *  2  Kings  ii.  12. 


THE   SONS    OF   THE   PROPHETS       45 

take  such  a  large  company  with  him  as  he  went 
about  to  sacrifice  at  the  various  shrines  which  were 
scattered  through  the  country ;  therefore  he  would 
have  a  body  at  each  place,  and  thus  it  would  happen 
that  "  sons  of  the  prophet "  would  be  found  in  many 
different  parts  of  the  land. 

Budde  makes  Saul  rather  than  Samuel  the  head  of 
the  prophets;^  but  I  think  without  sufficient  reason. 
Saul  only  catches  the  frenzy  when  under  the  influence 
of  the  prophetic  band.  What  befell  him  had  happened 
to  the  messengers  sent  by  him.^  It  is  true  that  "  the 
Spirit  of  God  rushed  upon  Saul  when  he  heard  these 
words  [telling  the  plight  of  Jabesh-gilead],  and  his 
anger  was  kindled  fiercely."^  But  this  is  said  also 
of  Samson,*  of  David,^  and  represents  the  common 
Hebrew  idea  that  any  person  doing  a  great  act  was 
moved  by  the  spirit  of  God.  That  moving  does  not 
constitute  a  prophet.  If  Saul  had  been  conceived  as 
a  prophet  his  visit  to  the  witch  of  En-dor  would  be 
unaccountable. 

Paton  supposes  these  prophets  to  have  come  into 
being  at  the  time  of  the  Philistine  invasion  ;  Samuel's 
work  was  to  organise  these  ecstatics  into  communi- 
ties, so  as  to  make  their  influence  more  effective.^ 
While  Samuel  was  the  head  of  such  orders,  I  believe 
it  necessary  to  distinguish  sharply  between  the  rank 
and  file  on  the  one  hand,  and  such  leaders  as  Samuel 
and  Elisha  on  the  other.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
Samuel   led    them    in    their   violent   religious   exer- 

^  Religion  of  Israel,  p.  95.  "  i  Sam.  xix.  18  ff. 

^  I  Sam.  xi.  6.  *  Judges  xiv.  6.  '  i  Sam.  xvi.  13. 

^  Early  History  of  Syria  and  Palestine,  p.  173. 


46  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

ciseSji  and  I  believe  that  he  was  not  in  the  habit  of 
doing  so.  Macdonald  concludes  that  inasmuch  as  the 
learned  theologian  al-Ghazzali  took  part  in  the  wild 
dervish  exercises,  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  sup- 
posing that  Samuel  should  take  part  in  the  prophetic 
ecstasy.2  But  al-Ghazzali  joined  the  Sufis  in  order 
to  stimulate  his  own  religious  life.  Samuel  organised 
the  prophets  to  quicken  the  religion  and  patriotism 
of  the  people. 

If  Samuel  gathered  a  band  of  disciples  at  each  of 
the  shrines  he  was  wont  to  visit,  then  we  have  at 
hand  the  explanation  of  two  facts  in  connexion  with 
these  prophets.  In  the  first  place,  we  find  them  in 
the  earliest  days  always  attached  to  a  sanctuary. 
Saul  met  the  band  of  prophets  coming  down  from 
the  high  place,  a  technical  term  for  a  local  shrine. 
Samuel  was  at  the  head  of  a  company  of  prophets 
at  Ramah,  which  was  his  home,  and  at  which  place 
he  had  built  an  altar.^  We  know  that  such  bands 
were  stationed  at  Bethel^  and  at  Jericho.^ 

Then,  again,  it  is  perfectly  certain  that  the  sons  of 
the  prophets  were  to  be  intimately  associated  with 
the  priests.^  Samuel  went  about  the  country  exer- 
cising the  functions  of  judge,  prophet,  and  priest. 
But  he  established  the  monarchy  to  take  the  place 

^  Unless  we  regard  I  Sam.  xix.  20  as  such  evidence.  Budde  says 
correctly  that  Samuel  sharply  distinguishes  himself  from  the  prophetic 
hordes  {Biicher  Samuel,  p.  139).  Kraetzschmar  says  that  ro'eh  (seer) 
was  applied  to  Samuel  to  distinguish  him  from  the  nebVim  (prophets). 

"^  J.A.O.S.,  XX.  93.  2  I  Sam.  vii.  17. 

*  2  Kings  ii.  3.  '2  Kings  ii.  5. 

*  "Shall  the  priest  and  prophet  be  slain  in  the  sanctuary  of  the 
Lord?"  (Lam.  ii.  20). 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       47 

of  the  judge,  and  the  order  of  prophets  with  functions 
distinct  from  the  priests.  After  this  time  the  con- 
nexion between  the  priest  and  the  higher  prophets 
became  less  and  less  close.  Most  of  the  great 
prophets  either  were  not  priests^  at  all  or  rarely- 
exercised  the  priestly  office.  The  members  of  the 
prophetic  guilds,  on  the  other  hand,  while  never 
serving  as  priests,  maintained  a  close  connexion  with 
the  priesthood.^ 

Elijah,  too,  offered  sacrifices.  The  prophets  were 
apparently  important  figures  at  religious  festivals. 
There  is  a  story  of  Elisha,  which  has  a  distinctly 
archaic  flavour,  and  which  shows  that  the  people 
were  accustomed  to  go  to  him  at  the  sacred  seasons. 
When  the  Shunamite,  whose  son  had  died,  proposed 
to  go  at  once  to  the  man  of  God,  her  husband  asked 
her:  "Why  art  thou  going  to  him  to-day?  It  is 
neither  new  moon  nor  Sabbath."^ 

Isaiah,  and  others  of  his  order,  class  priests  and 
prophets  together  in  their  denunciations.^  These  two 
classes  joined  in  the  persecution  of  Jeremiah.^  But 
the  clearest  connexion  is  shown  in  Jeremiah  v.  31  : 
"  the  prophets  prophesy  falsely,  and  the  priests  bearL — 
rule  at  their  hands'';^  that  is,  the  power  of  the  priest--^ 
hood  was  maintained   by  the  false  oracles  of  lying 

^  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  are  the  only  ones  who  belonged  to  the 
priestly  order. 

^  See  W.  Robertson  Smith,  Prophets,  p.  85.  This  author  holds 
that  at  Jerusalem  the  prophets  were  subject  to  the  priesthood  (/<J., 
P-  389)-  Jer.  V.  31  does  not  support  his  opinion.  On  this  passage  see 
further  in  text. 

'  2  Kings  iv.  23.  *  Isa.  xxviii.  7  ;  Zeph.  iii.  4 ;  Jer.  passim. 

*  Jer.  xxvi.  ;  cf.  xviii.  18.  *  Additional  note  (4). 


48  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

prophets.^  In  post-exilic  days  the  people  sent  to  the 
priests  and  prophets  to  learn  whether  they  shall  keep 
up  a  certain  fast  day,  as  if  uncertain  which  class 
should  answer  this  question.^ 

The  office  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets  is  more 
easily  determined  than  their  origin.  A  company 
was  coming  down  from  the  high  place,  where  they 
had  taken  part  in  some  ceremony.  Musical  instru- 
ments were  played  by  those  who  went  before  them, 
while  they  were  prophesying.^  This  prophesying 
does  not  mean  the  uttering  of  oracles,  or  the  pro- 
claiming of  religious  truth,  but  was  probably  some- 
thing like  the  incoherent  cries  one  may  hear  at  a 
primitive  revival.  The  frenzy  of  the  Baal  prophets, 
described  in  i  Kings  xviii.  28,  was  simply  an  ex- 
aggerated form  of  that  which  was  wont  to  seize  the 
sons  of  the  prophets  at  a  time  of  great  religious 
excitement.  Like  all  such  forms  of  religious  excite- 
ment, this  prophesying  was  contagious.  When  the 
messengers  of  Saul  came  to  Ramah  to  take  David, 
Samuel  protected  him  by  having  the  company 
prophesy  in  the  presence  of  the  messengers,  so  that 
they  caught  the  spirit  and  began  to  prophesy  like- 
wise. Three  sets  of  messengers  were  in  turn  in- 
capacitated for  their  errand  by  the  wild  frenzy 
induced  by  prophetic  contagion.  Then  Saul  came 
himself,  but  he  caught  the  spirit,  and  exceeded  all 
others  in  the  wildness  of  his  frenzy.    So  great  was  his 

^  Cf.  Jer.  vi.  13  ;  viii.  lo.  '^  Zech.  vii. 

^  So  the  prophets  of  David  were  said  to  prophesy,  stimulated  by  the 
music  of  harps,  psalteries,  and  cymbals  ( I  Chron.  xxv.  i ).  The  music 
was  designed  to  induce  the  ecstatic  state. 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       49 

excitement  that  he  tore  off"  his  clothes  ;  and  so  great 
was  the  resulting  exhaustion  that  he  lay  down  there 
naked  all  that  day  and  all  that  night.^  H.  P.  Smith 
therefore  scarcely  exaggerates  when  he  says  that 
"  we  have  here  a  company  of  dervishes-  engaged  in 
their  religious  exercises,"  and  explains  the  proverb, 
"Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets?"  as  a  mark  of 
surprise  that  the  son  of  a  well-to-do  man  should  be 
found  in  a  company  not  highly  esteemed.^ 

Some  scholars  hold  that  the  sons  of  the  prophets 
arose  from  political  conditions,  and  their  chief  pur- 
pose therefore  was  patriotic.  Day  calls  them  "ardent 
patriots."^  Paton  speaks  of  them  as  "bands  of  re- 
ligious devotees  traversing  the  land,  awakening 
the  patriotism  of  the  people."^  Budde  says,  "The 
prophets  appear  as  second  saviours  and  new  founders 
of  Israel's  nationality  and  religion."^  Winckler 
regards  the  prophets  as  political  agitators.^  Kraetzsch- 
mar,  to  whose  pamphlet  on  Prophet  und  Seher  im 
alten  Israel  I  gladly  confess  my  indebtedness,  regards 

^  I  Sam.  xix.  l8  ff.  This  passage  is  comparatively  late,  and  is 
regarded  as  another  attempt  to  explain  the  proverb,  "Is  Saul  among 
the  prophets?"  Such  a  proverb  would  be  applied  to  many  occasions. 
However  late  the  narrative  is,  it  is  perfectly  possible  that  just  such 
an  event  took  place.  Budde  distrusts  the  story  altogether.  At  all 
events  it  represents  a  correct  idea  of  the  habits  of  the  prophetic  guilds. 
The  older  story  (i  Sam.  x.  lo)  represents  Saul  as  catching  the  con- 
tagion in  the  same  way.     See  also  Encyc.  Bzbl.,  col.  3857. 

-  In  fact  the  study  of  the  life  of  Mohammedan  dervishes  gives  the 
fullest  light  for  an  adequate  knowledge  of  the  methods  of  the  sons  of 
the  prophets. 

^  Inter.  Crit.  Corn.,  pp.  68,  71. 

*  Social  Life  of  the  Hebrews,  p.  60. 

'  Syria  and  Palestine,  p.  173.  '  Religion  of  Israel,  p.  88. 

"  K.A.T.^  171. 
£ 


so  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

these  prophets  as  enthusiasts  for  the  old  conditions 
of  political  and  religious  life.  He  thinks  that  Saul's 
meeting  the  prophets  was  no  accident,  but  a  carefully- 
devised  plan  by  which  these  enthusiasts  might  arouse 
his  patriotic  and  religious  spirit.  I  am  persuaded 
that  Schultz  states  the  matter  more  correctly :  he 
holds  that  the  aim  of  these  prophets  was  religious, 
not  political.^  They  were  at  the  beginning  organised 
as  firm  adherents  of  the  national  God.  Their 
patriotism  was  merely  such  as  was  involved  in  their 
religion.  But  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  we  know 
but  little  of  the  motive  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets. 

As  early  as  the  days  of  Saul  the  bands  of  prophets 
were  consulted  for  advice.  Saul  was  driven  to  go  to 
the  witch  of  En-dor  because  "  Jahveh  did  not  answer 
him  by  dreams,  by  Urim,  or  by  the  prophets."-  It  is 
plain  that  the  prophets  here  are  the  guilds,  who  in 
their  ecstatic  state  were  supposed  to  reveal  the  will 
of  God. 

W.  Robertson  Smith^  says  that  Elijah  had  little 
to  do  with  the  "sons  of  the  prophets."  That  is 
apparently  true  of  the  later  period  of  his  life,  but  not 
of  the  earlier.  Elijah  fled  from  the  north  when 
Jezebel's  persecution  became  so  severe  that  prophets 
were  no  longer  safe  in  bodies.  The  reason  he  gives 
for  abandoning  his  field  is  that  he  only  was  left  of 
the  faithful,  and  his  life  was  in  imminent  danger.^ 
The  prophets  whose  slaughter  he  laments  were  com- 
panies with  which  he  had  been  associated.  It  is  not 
likely  that  there  were  other  conspicuous  individual 

^  O.T.  TheoL,  i.  242.  ^  i  Sam.  xxviii.  6. 

3  Prophets,  p.  85.  ■*  I  Kings  xix.  10. 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       51 

prophets  who  became  victims  of  Jezebel's  wrath.  In 
the  great  sacrifice  on  Mount  Carmel,  Elijah  says  with 
a  tone  of  bitter  regret  that  while  there  are  four 
hundred  and  fifty  prophets  of  Baal,  he  was  obliged  to 
stand  alone  as  the  representative  of  Jahveh/  for  his 
fellows  had  all  been  slain.  Obadiah  regards  his  act  '"j 
in  saving  a  hundred  of  the  "sons  of  the  prophets"  J 
from  the  royal  persecution  as  a  deed  sure  to  win 
favour  from  Elijah.-  If  the  great  prophet  had  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  guilds,  Obadiah  would  scarcely 
have  made  such  a  plea.  The  rescue  of  a  hundred  of 
these  prophets  incidentally  shows  how  numerous 
these  guilds  had  become. 

Elisha  certainly  stood  in  close  relation  to  the 
prophetic  guilds.  He  was  connected  with  them  as  a 
sort  of  father  superior.  Whether  this  was  an 
inheritance  from  his  great  predecessor  or  not  we 
cannot  tell  positively.  But  we  have  found  reason  to 
believe  that  all  the  conspicuous  prophets  of  the  early 
days  were  the  heads  of  the  guilds.  Elisha,  according 
to  the  story  told  in  2  Kings  ii.,  had  especial  reason  to 
look  with  favour  upon  them,  because  he  had  seen 
evidence  of  their  power  in  the  prediction  made  by 
company  after  company  that  his  master  would  be 
taken  from  his  head.  On  the  other  hand,  these 
prophets  recognised  that  the  leadership  of  Elijah 
had  fallen  to  him.^  This  incident  confirms  our  belief 
in  Elijah's  connexion  with  the  guilds.  Elisha  him- 
self had  probably  belonged  to  the  order  of  prophets, 
and  was  closer  to  Elijah  than  the  rest  because  of 

^  I  Kings  xviii.  22.  ^  I  Kings  xviii.  13. 

^  2  Kings  ii.  15  ;  cf.  %'.  14. 


52  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

personal  superiority.  That  Elisha  was  the  head  of 
the  guilds  is  abundantly  testified.  He  felt  called 
upon  to  feed  these  prophets  in  a  time  of  dearth,^  and 
to  put  himself  at  their  head  when  they  proposed  to 
build  larger  quarters.^  When  Elisha  resolved  to 
anoint  Jehu  king  of  Israel,  it  was  a  member  of  this 
order  who  not  only  carried  the  message  to  the  cap- 
tain, but  who  was  delegated  actually  to  anoint  the 
new  king.^  The  distressed  wife  of  one  of  these 
prophets  turns  naturally  to  Elisha  for  succour.^ 
Delegations  from  these  guilds  were  wont  to  come  to 
Elisha  for  counsel.^ 

But  such  a  relation  between  a  true  prophet  and 
this  order  did  not  persist.  In  Elisha's  own  time  we 
find  a  condition  of  affairs  very  different  from  what 
we  should  suspect  from  his  history  alone.  Micaiah 
the  son  of  Imlah  may  have  begun  his  career  as  one 
of  the  nebtim  (sons  of  the  prophets) ;  but,  if  so,  he 
soon  severed  his  connexion  completely.  The  atti- 
tude of  this  prophet  requires  fuller  exposition. 

In  the  Syrian  wars  Ramoth-gilead  had  been 
wrested  from  the  Israelites,  and  Ben-hadad  had  not 
kept  his  promise  to  restore  it.*^  Ahab  resolved  to 
take  it  by  force.  Jehoshaphat  the  king  of  Judah  and 
vassal  of  Ahab'^  agreed  to  Ahab's  proposal  for  a  joint 
expedition.     But  Jehoshaphat  was  unwilling  to  enter 

'  2  Kings  iv.  38  f,  '^  2  Kings  vi.  i.  ^2  Kings  ix. 

*  2  Kings  iv.  i.  ^2  Kings  v.  22. 

^  I  Kings  XX.  34.  Or  it  may  be,  as  Paton  holds  {Syria  and  Palestine, 
p.  208),  that  Ahab  had  lost  Ramoth-gilead  in  a  war  two  years  before, 
i.e.  in  855  B.C. 

''  That  Jehoshaphat  was  actually  in  vassalage  to  the  king  of  Israel  is 
shown  conclusively  by  Paton,  0/.  cit,,  p.  204. 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       53 

upon  a  campaign  without  assurance  of  the  favourable 
disposition  of  Jahveh.  Ahab  therefore  summoned  his 
four  hundred  prophets.  This  band  knew  what 
answer  the  king  expected.  He  was  one  who  was 
willing  to  consult  Jahveh,  provided  Jahveh  would 
answer  in  conformity  with  his  own  purposes.  He 
had  trained  his  prophets  to  their  business,  which  was 
to  comprehend  the  royal  rather  than  the  Divine 
will.  They  drew  their  inspiration,  not  from  heaven, 
but  from  the  throne.  They  answered  with  a 
unanimity  readily  comprehensible  to  us  :  "  Go  up, 
that  the  Lord  may  deliver  it  into  the  hand  of  the 
king."  1 

But  Jehoshaphat  was  not  satisfied.  He  knew  that 
these  were  accredited  prophets.  That  they  prophesied 
by  Jahveh,  and  not  by  Baal,  is  expressly  stated  by 
Micaiah  himself  ^  Nevertheless,  the  king  of  Judah 
saw  plainly  that  they  were  merely  echoing  the  wishes 
of  his  ally.  Insincerity  is  ever  difficult  to  disguise. 
Doubtless  these  subservient  seers  bowed  too  low  in 
their  ardour  to  interpret  the  royal  will  as  the  com- 
mand of  God.  Therefore  Jehoshaphat  asks  if  there 
is  not  another  prophet  of  Jahveh  by  whom  the  Divine 
will  may  be  ascertained.  The  king  of  Judah  assumed 
that  all  the  prophets  who  would  unscrupulously  bow 
to  the  will  of  Ahab  were  already  marshalled  in  im- 
posing array.  Any  prophet  not  in  that  company 
testified  by  his  absence  that  he  was  of  another  spirit. 

^  I  Kings  xxii.  6.  The  parallel  passage,  2  Chron.  xviii.  5,  has 
"God"  here  instead  of  "the  Lord,"  not  instead  of  "Jahveh,"  as  er- 
roneously stated  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary  (art.  "  Micaiah'').  Kittel, 
it  is  true,  supposes  "Jahveh"  to  be  the  original  text  {Kbiiige,  172). 

"  I  Kings  xxii.  2^. 


54  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

And  so  it  proved.  The  only  other  prophet,  at  least 
of  Jahveh,  was  Micaiah  the  son  of  Imlah,  who  was 
probably  in  prison  at  the  time.^  But  he  was  un- 
popular with  the  king,  because  he  prophesied  evil 
and  not  good.^  What  a  witness  Ahab  was  against 
himself!  The  only  prophet  in  the  land  who  dared 
to  tell  the  truth  could  never  predict  good  for  the 
king,  but  only  evil.  Micaiah  was  urged  to  confirm 
the  forecast  of  the  others,  but  replied,  like  the  true 
man  that  he  was,  "what  Jahveh  saith  to  me,  that 
will  I  speak."  At  first  he  repeated  the  words  of  the 
other  prophets,  but  with  such  scornful  irony  that 
even  Ahab  was  not  deceived. 

Schultz  seems  to  misunderstand  this  passage 
entirely.  He  says  that  Micaiah  "had  at  first,  in 
accordance  with  the  Divine  will,  to  say  what  was 
untrue,  because  he  was  aware  that  God  intended  to 
beguile  the  king."^  When  pressed  for  a  frank 
answer,  Micaiah  shows  his  hand,  not  only  predicting 
disaster  to  Israel,  but  adding  that  God  Himself  had 
laid  a  snare  for  the  wicked  Ahab  by  inspiring  His 
prophets  to  deceive  him.* 

^  Josephus  says  that  Ahab  had  already  put  Micaiah  in  prison, 
because  he  had  predicted  that  he  would  be  defeated  and  slain  by  the 
king  of  Syria  (^Antiquities,  viii.  xv.  4).  The  first  part  of  this  state- 
ment appears  to  be  correct.  Ahab  directs  that  Micaiah  be  sent  back 
to  Amon,  the  city  officer,  implying  that  he  had  previously  been  in  his 
custody.  But  the  reason  given  can  scarcely  be  right.  It  looks  as  if 
Josephus  had  taken  Micaiah's  present  prediction  as  a  reason  for  a 
previous  imprisonment. 

"^  I  Kings  xxii.  8.  *  O.T.  Theol,,  i.  p.  257. 

*  Budde  infers  from  this  statement  a  higher  opinion  of  these  prophets 
than  mine ;  for  he  says  they  were  deceived  by  Jahveh.  Such  an 
idea  was  by  no  means  repugnant   to  the  Hebrews,  as  we  may  see 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       55 

I  have  dwelt  here  at  some  length  upon  this  striking 
story,  although  it  has  been  already  referred  to,  be- 
cause it  is  the  first  case  of  a  solitary  prophet  taking 
issue  with  the  company  of  prophets.  Later  this  con- 
dition becomes  the  rule.  No  great  and  true  prophet 
after  this  time  ever  had  much  sympathy  with  the 
sons  of  the  prophets.  The  attitude  of  Micaiah  is  the 
attitude  of  all  the  rest,  and  for  the  same  essential 
reason  :  that  these  prophets  did  not  seek  to  follow 
the  counsels  of  God,  but  of  men,  and  no  one  can 
ever  be  a  true  prophet  and  do  that.  A  part  of  the 
evidence  of  the  hostility  of  the  great  prophets  towards 
these  guilds  must  be  reserved  for  a  later  chapter,  but 
enough  is  introduced  here  to  show  the  true  condi- 
tion of  things.  There  is  so  much  material  that  but 
a  small  proportion  can  be  used. 

First,  however,  we  may  note  that  the  beginning  of 
the  decline  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets  can  be  un- 
mistakably traced  to  the  persecution  of  Jezebel. 
That  wretched  woman  was  bent  upon  introducing 
her  own  religion  into  the  nation  of  Israel.  She 
brought  a  great  company  of  the  prophets  of  Baal 
to  Samaria.  Every  prophet  of  Jahveh  was  obliged 
to  change  his  god,  seek  uncertain  shelter  in  hiding, 
or  die.i     All  the  best  and  bravest  gave  up  their  lives, 

from  Dent.  xiii.  3  and  Ezek.  xiv.  9.  But,  however  possible  for 
Micaiah  to  conceive  of  Jahveh  sending  one  of  the  host  of  heaven  to  be 
a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  Ahab's  prophets,  such  a  conception 
is  impossible  from  the  Christian  point  of  view.  Jesus  said  the  devil 
was  "a  liar,  and  the  father  thereof"  (John  viii.  44).  It  is  significant 
that  a  snare  assigned  to  Jahveh  in  an  early  writer  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  i)  is 
by  the  late  Chronicler  ascribed  to  Satan  (l  Chron.  xxi.  i). 
'   I  Kings  xviii.  13. 


56  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

or  were  scattered  in  flight.^  Those  who  remained 
bowed  the  knee  not  so  much  to  Baal  as  to  the  royal 
authority.  They  were  a  selected  list  of  weaklings 
who  were  ready  to  prophesy  by  any  god,  and  to  give 
any  answer  required  by  the  king.  The  order  seems 
never  to  have  recovered  from  this  blow.  The  blood 
of  the  martyrs  may  have  been  the  seed  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  as  Tertullian  said,  but  it  was  the  ruin 
of  this  particular  institution  of  the  Jewish  Church. 
They  doubtless  served  a  good  purpose  in  the  early 
days,  though  their  office  was  a  humble  one ;  but  the 
prophet  who  values  peace  above  truth  has  always  in 
the  end  met  the  same  doom.  That  course  may  lead 
to  a  great  popularity  for  a  season,  but  it  cannot 
endure  the  searching  test  of  time. 

Budde  seems  to  think  that  the  sons  of  the  prophets 
were  never  held  high  in  the  popular  esteem.  He 
interprets  that  puzzling  question,  "  And  who  is  their 
father?"^  to  mean  that  "no  one  knows  to  whom 
they  belong :  they  are  stray  vagabonds  without  name 
or  pedigree."^  H.  P.  Smith  is  unable  to  get  a  satis- 
factory reading,  and  takes  refuge  in  the  usual  method 
of  supposing  the  text  corrupt.^  Schultz  notices  that 
the  Greek  reads,  "  who  is  his  father  ?  "  i.e.  Saul's.  He 
understands  the  question  to  be  an  inquiry  concern- 
ing the  one  who  had  taught  Saul  to  prophesy,  as 
the  sons  of  the  prophets  had  been  taught  by  their 
father  or  chief.  Driver  calls  this  rendering  easier, 
but  weak.     At  all  events,  it  is  more  intelligible  than 

^  See  additional  note  (5).  '^  i  Sam.  x.  12. 

^  Religion  of  Israel,  p.  94.  So  Kraetzschmar,  Prophet  iiud  Seher, 
p.  10.  *  Int.  Crit.  Com.,  in  loc. 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       57 

the  Hebrew.  Whether  Budde's  interpretation  is  right 
or  not,  it  is  very  probable  that  the  people  never  had 
a  good  opinion  of  these  prophets.^  But  let  us  see 
how  they  were  regarded  by  the  prophets  whose 
works  have  been  approved  by  time,  and  whose  life 
record  shows  that  they  were  endued  of  the  Spirit  of 
God. 

When  Amos  was  commanded  by  Amaziah  to  leave 
Bethel,  he  set  the  example  which  has  been  followed 
by  true  prophets  in  all  ages ;  that  is,  he  explained 
why  he  was  prophesying  at  Bethel,  and  declared  why  ^ 
he  could  not  obey  the  high  priest's  order.  In  his  \ 
apologia  he  says,  "  I  am  not  a  prophet,  nor  am  I  a  ! 
son  of  a  prophet  .  .  .  Jahveh  took  me  from  the  flock, 
and  Jahveh  said  unto  me,  Go  prophesy  unto  My 
people  Israel."  2  By  prophet  and  son  of  a  prophet, 
Amos  means  the  same  thing,  the  professional  order. 
He  does  not  belong  to  that  order  ;  he  is  speaking  by 
Divine  command,  not  by  royal  sanction.  Therefore 
he  cannot  heed  the  interdiction.  The  implication  is 
plain  that  the  members  of  that  order  were  subservient 
to  the  king's  pleasure.  There  is  a  note  of  indigna- 
tion in  Amos'  words,  as  if  he  said,  "  Am  I  one  of 
these  cringing  prophets,  that  you  expect  me  to  dis- 
regard the  expressed  will  of  God,  because  my  speech 
is  not  agreeable  to  the  king  ?  " 

Except  in  this  case,  the  great  prophets  do  not 
call  these  men  "sons  of  the  prophets,"  but  simply 

^  Jehu's  fellows  ask,  "Why  did  this  crazy  fellow  come  to  thee?" 
And  Jehu  replies,  "  You  know  the  man,  and  his  talk  "  (2  Kings  ix.  11). 
There  is  no  attempt  to  disguise  the  contempt  for  the  prophet  ;  yet  he 
led  them  to  revolution.  -  Amos  vii.  14  f. 


58  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

prophets.  They  do  not  discriminate  in  terms.  They 
call  the  prophets,  whom  God  has  raised  up  in  all  ages 
to  guide  His  people,  and  those  who  were  leading 
them  in  wrong  paths,  by  the  same  name.  The  Greek 
version  applies  the  term  "  false  prophet"  to  Hananiah, 
but  the  term  is  not  found  in  the  Hebrew  Old  Testa- 
ment anywhere.  And  yet  it  is  easy  to  tell  when  the 
great  prophets  are  speaking  of  the  order.  In  the 
cases  cited  below,  it  is  clear  that  the  sons  of 
the  prophets  are  meant.  The  scholars  who  have 
written  on  this  subject  generally  do  not  regard  these 
prophets  as  members  of  the  guilds.  They  regard  the 
sons  of  the  prophets  as  existing  only  in  the  earlier 
period.  Nothing  seems  to  me  more  certain  than  the 
fact  that  the  nebiim  denounced  by  all  the  writing 
prophets  were  members  of  the  guilds  established  by 
Samuel,  and  that  this  order  existed  all  through  Old 
Testament  history.  It  was  not  a  mere  temporary 
institution,  but  persisted  to  the  end  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment era. 

The  professional  prophet  was  not  to  be  depended 
upon.  He  did  not  rise  above  his  fellows,  he  did  not 
see  clearly  when  others  failed  ;  but  when  the  people 
stumbled  in  the  day,  the  prophet  would  stumble  with 
them  in  the  night.^  The  holy  city  was  disobedient 
and  all  classes  shared  in  the  wrong  ;  "  princes,  judges 
and  priests  have  been  no  support,  and  her  prophets 
are  boasters  and  traitors."  ^  These  prophets  are  un- 
trustworthy ;  they  do  not  speak  the  word  of  God,  but 
teach  vanity,  and  speak  a  vision  of  their  own  heart.^ 

^  Hosea  iv.  5.  -  Zeph.  iii.  4. 

•^  Jer.  xiv.  14,   xxiii.  16  ;  Ezek.  xiii.  3. 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       59 

They  even  steal  a  message,  "  each  one  from  his 
fellow."  1  They  have  given  way  to  the  most  deadly 
formality  ;  they  are  careful  to  preface  their  prophecies 
with  the  accepted  introduction  :  "oracle  of  Jahveh"  ; 
but  that  form  is  no  guarantee  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  message  to  which  it  is  prefixed,  and  in  fact  has 
been  so  abused  that  the  prophets  are  forbidden  any 
more  to  use  the  familiar  term." 

These  prophets  have  misled  the  people  and  have 
become  a  potent  cause  of  the  decay  and  downfall  of 
the  nation.  They  have  supposed  that  they  could 
lightly  heal  the  wounds  of  Judah  by  the  false  cry  of 
peace  when  there  was  no  peace.*^  The  poet,  looking 
back  and  reviewing  the  causes  which  led  to  the  ruin 
over  which  he  laments,  sees  how  the  prophets  have 
added  to  the  trouble :  "  Thy  prophets  have  seen  for 
thee  false  and  foolish  visions ;  and  they  have  not 
uncovered  thine  iniquity,  to  bring  back  thy  captivity, 
but  have  seen  for  thee  false  oracles  and  causes  of 
banishment."  ^ 

Not  only  were  they  not  sent  by  Jahveh,  but  on  the 
contrary,  He  utterly  repudiates  them  :  "  They  say 
*  oracle  of  Jahveh ' ;  but  Jahveh  hath  not  sent  them  : 
yet  they  look  for  the  fulfilling  of  their  word."  ^  "  I 
did  not  send  these  prophets,  yet  they  ran :  I  did  not 
speak  to  them,  yet  they  prophesied."  ^ 

^  Jer.  xxiii.  30.  Clerical  plagiarism  appears  to  be  an  old  sin. 
Strange  that  any  Christian  minister  should  justify  a  grossly  immoral 
practice  condemned  by  a  Hebrew  prophet.  We  may  take  courage  from 
the  belief  that  the  practice  of  stealing  sermons  and  sermon  material  is 
growing  less. 

-  Jer.  xxiii.  34  ft'.  "  Jer.  viii.  11,  xiv.  13  ;  Ezek.  xiii.  10, 

*  Lam.  ii.  14  ;  of.  iv.  13.         ^  Ezek.  xiii.  6.         "^  Jer.  xxiii.  21. 


6o  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

The  picture  of  the  moral  character  of  these  prophets 
is  a  very  dark  one,  but  nothing  shows  better  the  high 
moral  ideals  of  the  great  prophets  than  their  convic- 
tion of  the  hopeless  inconsistency  between  Divine 
insight  and  personal  vice.  One  of  the  prophets'  sins 
was  their  inordinate  greed,  Micah  says,  "  They  bite 
with  their  teeth,  and  cry  peace,  and  whoever  does  not 
put  into  their  mouths,  against  him  do  they  declare 
war."  ^  Ezekiel  makes  the  same  charge  against  female 
prophets.-  If  there  could  be  any  doubt  about  the 
understanding  of  his  homely  figure,  Micah  removes 
all  question  by  saying  plainly,  "  The  prophets  divine 
for  money."  2  Ezekiel  says  that  the  prophets  have 
conspired  together,  and  the  object  of  the  conspiracy 
is  clear :  "  they  devour  men  ;  they  take  treasure  and 
wealth  ;  they  make  her  widows  many."  ^ 

Isaiah  looks  out  with  divinely  given  insight  chiefly 
upon  the  conditions  in  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  but  his 
broad  vision  is  too  wide  to  be  narrowly  restricted  in 
its  range,  and  he  adds  pictures  of  conditions  in  the 
north.  One  of  the  gross  vices  of  Samaria  is  drunken- 
ness. It  is  not  merely  the  poor  labouring  man  who 
is  addicted  to  this  vice ;  for  "  these  also  reel  with 
wine,  and  stagger  with  strong  drink  ;  the  priest  and 
the  prophet  reel  with  strong  drink,  they  are  swallowed 
up  of  wine,  they  stagger  with  strong  drink  ;  they  reel 
in  the  vision,  they  totter  in  giving  decisions."^  These 
unworthy  ministers  of  God  are  not  even  sober  when 
performing  the  duties  of  their  sacred  offices.  The 
prophet   shows   further  the   disgusting   spectacle   of 

^  Micah  iii.  5.  "  Ezek.  xiii.  17  ft".  •'  Micah  iii.  il. 

■*  Ezek.  xxii.  25.         ^  Isa.  xxviii.  7. 


THE   SONS   OF   THE    PROPHETS       6i 

their    orgies :    "  all    tables    are    full    of  vomit    and 
filthiness,  so  that  there  is  no  place  clean." ^ 

One  vice  begets  another.  The  low  conception 
of  their  sacred  office  placed  these  prophets  in  em- 
barrassing positions.  But  they  were  true  to  their 
base  standard.  One  of  the  commonest  sins  charged 
against  them  is  one  of  the  blackest,  lying.  Isaiah 
says  the  prophet  that  teacheth  lies  is  the  tail  which 
Jahveh  will  ruthlessly  cut  off.^  Whatever  one  may 
think  about  the  words  which,  in  the  prophetic  utter- 
ances, are  attributed  to  God  Himself,  one  may  surely 
claim  this  much  without  opening  distracting  contro- 
versy :  what  the  prophet  ascribes  directly  to  God  is 
judged  to  be  the  weightiest  truth.  Then  we  shall  be 
prepared  for  carefully  considered  words  when  we  find 
this  preface  to  Jeremiah's  message :  "  Jahveh  said 
unto  me";  and  listen  to  what  Jahveh  says:  "The 
prophets  are  prophesying  lies  in  My  name  .  .  .  they 
prophesy  unto  you  a  lying  vision  ...  a  thing  of 
nought,  the  deceit  of  their  own  heart." s  All  lying  is 
immoral.  There  are  not  many  lies  which  are  really 
very  white.  But  some  are  blacker  than  others  ;  and 
a  lie  told  in  the  holy  name  of  God  is  the  blackest  of 
all. 

Jeremiah  has  more  to  say  about  the  sins  of  these 
prophets  than  any  other.  The  conditions  in  his  time 
were  such  as  to  make  the  man  who  was  iilthy  more 
filthy  still.  After  the  hopes  raised  by  Josiah's  re- 
forms passed  away,  the  king  and  court  and  people 
no  longer  sought  righteousness  and  truth,  but  were 

^  Isa.  xxviii.  8.  "^  Isa.  ix.  15. 

^  Jer.  xiv.  14;  cf.  xxvii.  14-16;  Ezek.  xiii.  8. 


62  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

ever  ready  to  be  fed  on  false  hopes  of  security  and 
peace.  They  asked  of  the  prophet  only  that  he 
would  give  them  a  cheerful  message.  There  was  no 
constraint  laid  upon  the  weak  prophets  by  the  great 
power  of  public  opinion.  Anything  would  be  for- 
given except  speaking  the  truth  to  people  who 
would  not  hear.  The  sins  we  have  mentioned, 
^many  and  serious  as  they  are,  do  not  exhaust  the 
.  catalogue.  "  In  the  prophets  of  Jerusalem  I  have 
I  seen  a  horrible  thing :  they  commit  adultery,  and 
I  walk  in  lies :  and  they  strengthen  the  hands  of  evil- 
doers so  that  none  returns  from  his  wickedness." i 
This  faithful  yet  persecuted  prophet  does  not  always 
shelter  himself  behind  general  statements.  He 
makes  this  specific  charge  against  Zedekiah  and 
Ahab,  two  captive  prophets  in  Babylon,  who  were 
doing  great  harm  by  their  lies  :  "  They  have  wrought 
folly  in  Israel,  and  they  have  committed  adultery 
with  their  neighbours'  wives,  and  have  spoken  words 
in  My  name  falsely."^  His  opinion  of  these  prophets, 
and  his  advice  about  them,  are  gathered  up  in  a 
sentence :  "  For  every  man  that  is  mad,  and  maketh 
himself  a  prophet,  thou  shouldst  put  them  in  the 
stocks  and  in  shackles."^ 

In  the  period  of  the  exile  and  of  the  restoration 
we  hear  comparatively  little  of  the  sons  of  the 
prophets.  Schultz  says  the  prophetic  guilds  had 
ceased  already  in  the  Assyrian  age ;  *  but  in  this  I 
am  sure  the  learned  author  is  greatly  mistaken. 
There  is  enough  to  show  that  they  were  in  existence 

^  Jer.  xxiii.  14.  *  Jer.  xxix.  23. 

^  Jer.  xxix.  26.  *  0.7'.  Theol.,  i.  221. 


THE   SONS   OF   THE    PROPHETS       63 

still,  and  that  the  leopard  had  not  changed  his  spots. 
In  a  part  of  the  book  of  Zechariah,  which  probably 
belongs  to  a  date  about  300  B.C.,i  we  have  a  fine 
Messianic  passage  giving  a  picture  of  the  new 
golden  age.  The  chief  marks  of  that  day  will  be 
the  total  extinction  of  the  many  causes  of  Israel's 
degradation.  Idols  will  be  swept  away,  but  that 
will  not  remove  the  greatest  evils.  Jahveh's  work 
will  be  unsparing :  "  The  prophets  and  the  unclean 
spirit  I  will  drive  out  of  the  land."^  No  one  else  isi 
so  severe  as  this  unknown  prophet  from  the  late 
days  of  Israel.  The  time  will  come,  he  says,  when 
if  any  man  venture  to  prophesy,^  even  his  father  and 
mother  will  put  him  to  death.  A  man  would  boast 
then,  as  Amos  did,  of  being  a  humble  labourer  rather 
than  a  prophet.*  This  passage  shows  the  odium 
which  had  come  to  be  attached  to  an  order  which,  in 
its  best  day,  never  reached  anything  very  high,  and 
at  its  lowest  sank  into  the  deepest  pits.  G.  A.  Smith" 
says  strongly  but  truly,  "The  prophets  had  become 
mere  professional  and  mercenary  oracle-mongers 
abjured  to  the  point  of  death  by  their  own  ashamed 
and  weary  relatives."^  Though  no  prophets  are 
named  in  the  catalogue  of  returning  exiles,  there 
were  prophets  at  Jerusalem  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah.^ 

^  G.  A.  Smith,  Book  of  the  Twelve  Prophets,  ii.  401. 

-  Zech.  xiii.  2.  Toy  says,  "The  writer  feels  himself  to  be  apart  from 
the  prophetic  herd,  whose  inspiration  he  connects  with  an  unclean 
spirit"  {Judaisvi  and  Christianity,  p.  54).  Yet  Toy  seems  to  make  no 
real  distinction  between  the  writer  and  the  prophets  he  denounces. 

•^  Manifestly  he  did  not  mean  such  prophesying  as  he  himself  was 
doing.  ■»  Zech.  xiii.  3  ff. 

*  Twelve  Prophets,  ii.  484.  "  Neh.  vi.  14. 


64  THE    HEBREW    PROPHET 

What  the  governor  says  about  them  shows  that  they 
were  the  same  kind  as  those  denounced  in  Zechariah. 

Of  the  functions  of  these  prophets  very  little  needs 
to  be  added.  Originally  they  seem  to  have  been 
attendants  of  their  chief,  probably  going  through 
their  exciting  exercises  to  induce  the  ecstatic  state. 
Elisha  calls  for  a  minstrel,^  apparently  because  such 
a  body  was  not  with  the  invading  armies.  They  were 
sent  out  on  special  missions  by  their  chiefs  In  very 
few  cases  did  they  act  on  their  own  initiative.  One 
of  them  disguised  himself  to  rebuke  Ahab  for  letting 
his  chance  slip  to  end  the  Syrian  wars  when  Ben- 
hadad  was  in  his  power.^  It  is  true  that  Josephus 
identifies  this  prophet  with  Micaiah  the  son  of 
Imlah;*  and  Patrick,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary, 
pronounces  this  identification  not  unlikely.  It  has 
not  a  shred  of  evidence  to  stand  upon. 

As  time  went  on  it  was  natural  that  they  should 
exercise  more  and  more  the  general  functions  of  a 
true  prophet,  especially  when  they  were  cut  off  from 
the  leadership  of  great  men,  and  made  subservient 
to  the  royal  will.  A  similar  thing  happened  in  the 
early  Apostolic  Church.  Deacons  were  appointed 
to  serve  tables,  that  the  greater  Apostles  might  be 
set  free  to  preach  the  Gospel.  But  as  the  order  was 
broken  and  scattered  by  persecution  we  find,  as  we 
might  expect,  these  deacons  exercising  the  functions 
of  baptising  and  preaching. 

The  numerous  membership  of  the  prophetic  guilds 
raises  the  question  of  livelihood.    Were  the  prophets 

^  2  Kings  iii.  15.  "2  Kings  iv.  29  ;  ix.  i  ft". 

^  I  Kings  XX.  35  fl:".  ■*  Antiquities^  viii.  xiv.  5. 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       65 

obliged  to  provide  for  themselves,  or  were  there 
emoluments  of  office  to  maintain  them  ?  The  in- 
formation available  enables  us  to  answer  these 
questions  very  definitely. 

Elisha  first  appears  plowing  in  his  father's  field.^  \ 
As  there  were  twelve  yoke  of  oxen  at  work,  his 
family  must  have  had  considerable  means.  It  is  not 
surprising,  therefore,  to  hear  of  him  living  in  his  own 
house  at  Samaria ;  ^  and  he  probably  provided 
largely  for  his  own  support.  Not  entirely  so,  how- 
ever, for  we  read  of  his  eating  frequently  at  the  table 
of  the  rich  Shunamite,  who  built  a  special  room  for 
his  accommodation.^  So  Elijah  in  a  time  of  dearth 
was  fed  by  a  widow  of  Zarephath.*  A  man  of  Baal- 
shalisha  brought  Elisha  the  first-fruits  for  himself 
and  the  sons  of  the  prophets  who  were  with  him." 
This  story  has  been  preserved  because  of  a  miracle 
connected  with  it  :  one  hundred  prophets  were  fed 
on  the  twenty  barley  loaves  and  a  few  ears  of  corn. 
There  were  probably  many  other  instances  of  gifts 
of  food  to  the  prophets  of  which  we  hear  nothing. 
A  large  part  of  the  living  came  from  alms. 

The  prophets'  fees  were  a  considerable  source  of     ' 
revenue.     The  fee  paid  to  Samuel  for  telling  where 
the  lost  asses  were,^  shows  the  general  custom  of  ^ 
paying  the  seers  for  their  services.  Balak's  messengers 
carried    a   fee   to    Balaam."      Naaman   expected    to 
make   a   handsome   payment    for    the   cure   of    his 

^  I  Kings  xix.  19.  ^  2  Kings  vi.  32.  *  2  Kings  iv.  8,  10. 

*  I  Kings  xvii.  8  ff .       ^2  Kings  iv,  42  ff. 

®  I  Sam.  ix,  8 ;  one-fourth  of  a  silver  shekel,  about  sixteen  cents. 
"^  Num.  xxii.  7. 
F 


66  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

leprosy.^  Gehazi,  the  servant  of  EHsha,  evidently 
thought  his  master  reckless  in  throwing  away  such 
an  opportunity,  and  he  tried  to  replenish  the  treasury 
'secretly.  The  Syrian  understood  the  plea  that  un- 
expected visitors  who  were  prophets  made  an  im- 
perative demand.  A  gift  for  a  prophet  was  plainly 
a  common  thing.  When  Ben-hadad  sent  Hazael  to 
consult  Elisha,  he  naturally  directed  him  to  take  a 
fee  in  his  hand.^  There  is  no  intimation  that  the 
prophet  declined  the  very  large  payment. 

The  rapacity  of  the  prophets  increased  in  the 
course  of  time.  Micah  refers  to  their  habit  of  wag- 
ing war  on  those  who  did  not  provide  them  with 
food.^  Ezekiel  finds  both  men  and  women  guilty 
of  a  similar  fault.^  The  second  Isaiah  finds  the 
same  condition  in  his  time.^  These  prophets  had 
apparently  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  world 
owed  them  a  living.  Schultz  sees  in  these  cases 
evidence  that  "some  took  to  prophesying  just  for 
the  sake  of  a  livelihood."  ^  The  mercenary  spirit  did 
not  die  out  until  the  order  became  extinct.  Nehemiah 
discovered  that  God  had  not  sent  Shemaiah  with  a 
prophetic  warning,  but  that  the  prophet  had  been 
hired  by  Tobiah  and  Sanballat  to  utter  in  the  name 
of  God  a  message  which  ;his  employers  furnished.'^ 
This  custom  of  taking  fees  was  doubtless  rejected  by 
the  great  prophets,  as  Cheyne  suggests,^  because  it 
*— had  become  an  abuse.     But  in  the  earlier  days  it  was 

^  2  Kings  V.  15.  ^2  Kings  viii.  8. 

•*  Micah  iii.  5i  !'•  *  Ezek.  xiii,  19;  xxii.  25. 

'  Isa.  Ivi.  10  f.  «  O.T.  TheoL,  i.  261. 

^  Neh.  vi.  12.  •*  Commentary  on  Isaiah,  ii.  68. 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       ^7 

expected  that  a  prophet  should  obtain  his  living  by   1 
his  office ;  so  Amaziah  tells  Amos  "  to  flee  to  Judah 
and  there  eat  bread  and  there  prophesy."  ^ 

We  are  told  of  a  large  company  of  prophets  who 
were  fed  at  Jezebel's  table.^  These  were  Syrian 
prophets  imported  by  the  queen,  who  would  have 
fared  ill  if  left  to  the  support  of  the  people.  It  can 
scarcely  be  doubtful,  however,  that  the  company  of 
prophets  who  were  ever  ready  to  utter  oracles  in 
harmony  with  Ahab's  will  were  supported  by  the 
royal  bounty.  They  respected  the  hand  that  fed., 
them.  Obadiah,  Ahab's  house-steward,  fed  one  \ 
hundred  prophets  while  they  were  hiding  in  a  cave 
at  a  time  of  persecution. 

The  prophets  were  not  always  amply  furnished 
with  the  necessaries  of  life.  The  widow  of  one  of 
them  comes  to  Elisha  in  great  distress.^  When  the 
guild  needed  larger  quarters  they  were  obliged  to 
build  it  with  their  own  hands,  even  being  constrained 
to  borrow  the  necessary  tools.*  At  a  period  of 
famine  the  sons  of  the  prophets  went  out  to  gather 
herbs  that  they  might  have  food.^  Schultz  quotes 
this  passage  as  proof  that  the  prophets  engaged  in 
agriculture  ;  ^  it  is  rather  proof  of  their  ignorance  of 
rural  arts,  as  one  of  them  unwittingly  gathered 
poisoned  herbs,  and  put  them  in  the  boiling  pot,  and 
so  nearly  killed  the  whole  band. 

To  sum  up  in  a  word.     The  maintenance  of  the 

^  Amos  vii.  12  ;  that  is,  Amos  was  to  eat  the  bread  earned  by  his 
exercise  of  the  prophetic  office.  Amos  tells  with  satisfaction  that  he 
had  maintained  himself  by  tending  the  herd  and  dressing  trees. 

-  I  Kings  xviii.  19.  ^2  Kings  iv.  i,  ''2  Kings  vi.  i  ff. 

"  2  Kings  iv.  38  ff.  ^  q.  T.  TheoL,  i.  241  f. 


68  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

,'''  prophets  came  from  their  private  means  and  personal 
A    efforts ;  from  the  royal  bounty;  from  fees  for  counsel ; 

\  and  from  the  alms  of  the  people.  On  the  whole,  the 
last  two  sources  were  those  upon  which  they  chiefly 
relied.  The  dependence  of  these  prophets  was  un- 
doubtedly one  of  the  causes  of  their  degradation. 
They  looked  for  support  to  the  people  for  whom 
they  prophesied.  People  will  pay  for  good  news, 
not  for  bad.  Naaman  was  carrying  his  fee  back  to 
Syria  when  he  left  Elisha  in  indignation.  After  he 
was  cured  of  his  leprosy  he  went  back  to  the  prophet 

Teager  to  bestow  a  rich  reward.  The  great  prophets 
did  not  receive  fees,  and  so  far  as  we  know  were  not 
supported    by   the   people  in    any  way.     Their   in- 

&  dependence  enabled  them  to  stick  to  the  truth  with- 
out undue  temptation.     Jeremiah,  we  know,  was  a 
man  of  such  ample  means  that  he  was  able  to  buy 
1  land  and  pay  cash  for  it.^ 

It  remains  to  say  a  few  words  about  the  dress  of 
the  prophets.  The  kindred  order  of  the  Nazirites 
wore  their  hair  long,  perhaps  as  a  special  mark  of 
their  order.  The  priests  wore  a  distinctive  dress. 
Did  the  sons  of  the  prophets  have  any  outward  mark 
by  which  they  could  be  distinguished  ?  Our  informa- 
tion is  slight,  and  yet  considerable  light  may  be 
drawn  from  it.  It  seems  to  have  been  the  custom  of 
the  higher  prophets  to  wear  a  peculiar  mantle  as  a 
sign  of  their  office.  When  the  witch  of  En-dor  de- 
scribed Samuel  she  said,  "An  old  man  cometh  up; 
and  he  is  covered  with  a  robe."^  This  was  enough  to 
enable  Saul  to  recognise  Samuel,  without  mention 

1  Jer.  xxxii.  9.  ^  I  Sam.  xxviii.  14. 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       69 

of  the  rent  made  in  the  robe  by  his  own  hands.^ 
This  was  probably  an  unusually  large  garment  in 
which  a  man  could  completely  wrap  himself.-  When 
Ahijah  went  out  to  meet  Jeroboam  he  was  clad  in  a 
new  garment.  The  rending  of  the  prophetic  mantle 
was  symbolic  of  the  rending  of  the  kingdom  from 
Rehoboam,  as  the  rending  of  Samuel's  had  been 
before.^  Elijah  wore  a  similar  mantle.  When  Ahab 
learns  that  the  person  met  by  his  messengers  was 
"  a  man  with  a  garment  of  hair,  and  girt  with  a  girdle 
of  leather  about  his  loins,"  he  said  at  once,  "  It  is 
Elijah  the  Tishbite."  *  Elijah  was  commanded  to 
anoint  Elisha  as  his  successor  in  the  prophetic  office. 
To  execute  this  order  he  cast  his  mantle  upon  Elisha 
as  the  latter  was  plowing  in  the  field  ;  for  to  be 
clothed  with  the  prophetic  robe  was  to  be  called  to 
the  prophetic  office  ;  and  Elisha  readily  recognised 
the  significance  of  this  act.^  The  prophetic  vestment 
was  a  symbol  of  the  prophet's  miraculous  powers. 

Elijah  used  his  mantle  to  clear  a  way  through  the 
waters  of  the  Jordan,^  and  his  successor,  to  whom  the 
mantle  had  fallen,  used  it  in  the  same  way.'^  Before 
Elisha  put  on  the  garment  of  his  predecessor  we  are 
told  that  "  he  seized  his  garments  and  tore  them  into 
two  pieces."^  From  this  statement  we  are  told  in 
Hastings'  Bible,  Dictionary,  i.  693,  that  Elisha  wore 
the  clothing  common  to  other  men.     The  fact  seems 

^  I  Sam.  XV.  27. 

'  In  spite  of  this  statement,  Kraetzschmar,  who  holds  that  Samuel 
was  a  seer,  and  not  a  nabi,  contends  that  the  seers  did  not  wear  the 
prophetic  mantle.  ^  i  Kings  xi.  29  f;  cf.  I  Sam.  xv.  27  f. 

•*  2  Kings  i.  8.  ^  i  Kings  xix.  16  ff. 

^  2  Kings  ii.  8.  "'2  Kings  ii.  14.  ^2  Kings  ii.  12. 


70  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

to  be  that  he  tore  off  his  own  garment^  and  dis- 
carded it,2  that  he  might  put  on  the  robe  of  Elijah, 
and  so  appear  in  the  garb  of  the  great  leader. 

The  peculiar  garment  had  become  a  mark  of  the 
prophet's  position.  When  Isaiah  was  commanded  to 
loose  the  sackcloth  from  his  loins,  and  assume  the 
scanty  garb  of  a  captive,^  the  sackcloth  is  the  hairy 
garment  of  the  prophet.  In  the  work  of  destruction 
all  ranks  would  be  reduced  to  slavery.  The  girdle 
which  Jeremiah  wore,  whose  rotting  by  the  Eu- 
phrates is  a  symbolic  prophecy,  implies  that  he  too 
wore  the  large  prophetic  mantle  which  was  fastened 
at  the  waist  by  a  girdle.*  John  Baptist  was  clothed 
as  a  prophet,  wearing  the  raiment  of  camel's  hair 
fastened  at  the  loins  by  a  leather  girdle.^ 

J  astro  w,  in  his  interesting  article  on  "  The  Tearing 
of  Garments  as  a  Symbol  of  Mourning,"^  holds  a  very 
different  notion  of  the  prophet's  dress.  He  says, 
"  The  example  of  Saul  shows  that  stripping  off  the 
garments  was  an  act  preliminary  to  prophesying,  and 
hence  even  at  a  later  age  the  prophet's  garb  is 
characterised  as  more  primitive  than  the  ordinary 
fashions  of  the  day.  It  is  clearly  because  prophesying 
is  a  religious  act  that  nakedness  is  associated  with 
it."^  And  again,  "From  the  passage  Isaiah  xx.  2-4, 
it  appears  that  the  prophet's  ordinary  clothes  con- 
sisted merely  of  a  loin-cloth  and  sandals,  and  from 

^  This  is  not  excluded  by  the  fact  that  the  rending  of  the  garment 
was  a  mark  of  sorrow. 

-  Jastrow  argues  that  the  language  here  used  means  a  tearing  of 
the  garments  off  the  body  {J.A.O.S.,  xxi.  24). 

^  Isa.  XX.  2.  ^  Jar.  xiv.  ^  Matt.  iii.  4  ;  Mark  i.  6. 

^  J.A.O.S.,  xxi.  23  ff.  ■  lb.,  p.  35. 


THE   SONS   OF   THE   PROPHETS       71 

other  testimony  we  know  that  the  dress  of  the 
seers  was  of  a  much  simpler  character  than  that 
worn  by  other  persons."  ^ 

I  cannot  follow  Jastrow's  reasoning.  As  the 
prophet  became  heated  in  his  frenzy,  he  would 
naturally  cast  aside  his  large  outer  garment,  just  as 
the  countryman  may  throw  off  his  coat  to  dance. 

1  agree  with  Cheyne  that  "sackcloth"  in  Isaiah  xx. 

2  refers  to  the  haircloth  which  the  prophets  adopted 
as  their  habitual  dress.  The  expression  to  gird  sack- 
cloth implies  that  it  was  worn  as  an  outer  garment. 
It  is  good  Hebrew  usage  to  call  one  "  naked  "  who 
had  laid  aside  the  outer  garment.  Jastrow  is  carried 
away  by  his  thesis  that  in  religious  practices  there  is 
a  tendency  to  revert  to  the  primitive  customs. 

Kraetzschmar  holds  that  the  nebVim  wore  the  hairy 
mantle,  but  that  the  seers  (ro'im)  had  no  distinctive 
dress.  He  draws  too  sharp  a  line  between  the  seers 
and  the  prophets.  The  statement  in  2  Samuel  xxiv. 
II,  "the  prophet  Gad,  David's  seer,"  would  imply  that 
the  former  term  denoted  the  general  office,  and  the 
latter  the  particular  function,  as  we  might  say  "the 
priest  A.  B.,  rector  of  St.  James'  Church." 

Did  the  sons  of  the  prophets  also  wear  a  distinctive 
dress  ?  From  our  meagre  information  and  from  the 
probabilities  of  the  case,  we  infer  that  they  did.^  A 
New  Testament  writer  expresses  the  accepted  Jewish 
idea  when  he  says  that  the  prophets  "  went  about  in 
sheepskins,  in  goatskins."  ^    When  one  of  these  went 

;  lb.,  p.  31. 

"  The  dervishes  still  wear  a  cloak  of  camel's  hair  (Stanley,  Sinai 
aiid Pal.,  p.  381).  3  Heb.  xi.  37. 


72  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

out  to  meet  Ahab  he  "  disguised  himself  with  a  cover- 
ing over  his  eyes."^  As  soon  as  the  covering  was 
removed  the  king  "  recognised  him  that  he  was  one 
of  the  prophets."2  This  cannot  mean  that  the  king 
recognised  his  face  because  of  personal  acquaintance  ; 
the  statement  is  explicit  that  Ahab  perceived  that  he 
was  one  of  the  prophets.  Some  mark  of  a  prophet 
had  been  covered  to  effect  a  disguise.^  The  disguise 
may  have  been  partly  effected  by  laying  aside  the 
prophetic  cloak.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  case 
when  the  members  of  this  order  occupied  a  humble 
and  subordinate  place,  it  is  more  than  probable  that 
they  clothed  themselves  in  the  peculiar  prophetic 
dress  when  they  assumed  the  complete  prophetic 
functions.  In  Zechariah  we  are  told  that  in  the  new 
era  "  the  prophets  shall  be  ashamed  of  their  vision  ; 
neither  shall  they  wear  a  hairy  mantle  to  deceive."* 
It  is  probable  that  in  Zechariah  xi.  3,  we  should  read 
"  their  [the  shepherds']  prophetic  garment  is  de- 
stroyed "  for  "  their  glory  is  spoiled,"  the  howling 
shepherds  being  no  other  than  these  useless  prophets. 
It  seems  to  be  highly  probable  that  this  dress  was 
common  to  all  prophets,  and  was  universally  re- 
garded as  a  mark  of  their  office,  just  as  now  the 
cassock  vest  is  a  garment  peculiar  to  the  clergy. 

^  I  Kings  XX.  38.  '^  I  Kings  xx.  41. 

^  Kittel  argues  from  this  passage  that  the  prophets  were  recognis- 
able by  some  mark  on  the  face,  in  the  region  of  the  eyes.  Kraetzsch- 
mar  holds  that  the  prophets  wore  a  hairy  mantle  and  also  made  scars 
in  their  foreheads,  after  the  manner  of  the  Beduin  tribes.  To  disguise 
himself  this  prophet  simply  covered  his  face  with  a  cloth  in  order  to 
conceal  the  scars.  This  view  affords  a  good  explanation  of  this 
passage,  but  lacks  other  support  in  O.T.     See  additional  note  (6). 

''  Zech.  xiii.  4. 


CHAPTER   V 
THE   PROPHET'S    CALL 

NOTHING  is  more  striking  in  the  phenomena 
of  prophecy  than  the  absolute  confidence  with 
which  the  message  is  spoken.  The  reason  of  this  is 
not  far  to  seek,  for  the  Holy  Ghost  spoke  by  the 
prophets.  If  the  prophet  were  expressing  merely 
his  own  opinions,  the  positiveness  of  his  tone  would 
not  be  altogether  inexplicable.  Any  man  who  has 
deep  convictions  is  apt  to  speak  them  with  a  confi- 
dence bordering  on  assurance.  But  the  peculiarly 
strong  confidence  of  the  prophet  had  a  different  and 
deeper  basis.  He  was,  indeed,  a  man  of  strong  con- 
victions, but  above  that  he  was  fully  persuaded  that 
he  spoke  the  mind  of  his  God.  Consequently  there 
is  no  doubt,  no  hesitation,  no  uncertainty.  He  is 
authorised  to  preface  his  message  with  the  formula 
"Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  and  therefore  feels  that  his 
words  cannot  be  gainsaid. 

It  was  not  given  to  every  Hebrew  to  know  or  to 
declare  the  will  of  God.  The  ability  and  right  to  do 
that  was  the  direct  gift  of  God  Himself  He  selected 
out  of  the  mass  of  men  those  to  whom  His  purposes 
were  so  revealed  that  they  spoke  with  conviction 
and  authority.  In  other  words,  the  prophet  believed 
himself  to  be  divinely  called  to  his  office.     He  held 

73 


74  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

that  without  that  call  no  one  had  a  right  to  exercise 
the  prophetic  function.  Those  who  did  so  otherwise 
were  mere  pretenders  or  visionaries  who  spoke  the 
vanity  of  their  own  hearts.  Sometimes,  indeed,  the 
true  prophets  were  unwilling  to  believe  that  any  man 
could  say  insincerely  *'  thus  saith  the  Lord."  Yet 
they  knew  the  message  so  introduced  to  be  false  and 
misleading.  The  only  explanation  was  that  God 
Himself  had  deceived  the  prophet.^  Sometimes  the 
error  of  the  seers  is  attributed  to  the  inspiration  of 
false  gods.2 

The  most  certainly  genuine  call,  however,  could 
have  evidential  value  chiefly  for  the  one  who  experi- 
enced it.  In  the  usual  tests  of  prophecy,  as  we  shall 
see  in  a  subsequent  chapter,^  the  call  has  no  place. 
For  it  is  a  personal  experience,  and  its  nature  varies 
with  the  personality.  It  is  therefore  impossible  to 
set  up  a  standard  by  which  its  genuineness  can  be 
predetermined.  This  rule  applies  to  modern  as  well 
as  ancient  prophets  ;  hence  no  minister  should  ever 
be  asked  for  evidence  of  his  call  other  than  may  be 
read  in  his  ministry ;  and  no  Christian  should  ever 
be  asked  to  expose  his  deepest  spiritual  experiences 
to  a  curious  audience. 

Yet  the  Hebrew  prophets  have  generally  them- 
selves told  the  story  of  their  call.  There  is,  however, 
a  vast  difference  between  a  voluntary  revelation  of  a 
deep  personal  experience  for  the  sake  of  one's 
fellows,  and  an  enforced  exposure  which  could  have 
no  proper  meaning  to  one's  auditors,  for  they  sit  as 

^  See,  for  example,  I  Kings  xxii.  22  ;  Ezek.  xiv.  9. 
^  Jer.  ii.  8.  *  See  chap.  vi. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  75 

judges  rather  than  as  disciples.  The  prophet  would 
have  scorned  to  betray  the  secret  of  his  soul  before 
a  body  sitting  to  pass  judgment  on  the  genuineness 
of  his  vision.  God  had  spoken  to  him,  and  should 
any  mortal  pretend  to  control  one  who  had  heard 
the  Divine  voice?  But  when  in  the  course  of  his 
ministry,  the  story  of  his  call  could  lend  weight  to 
his  words,  and  so  persuade  those  who  were  doubtful 
of  God's  revelation,  then  the  prophet  would  not  hold 
back  even  the  dearest  secret  of  his  heart. 

Such  autobiographical  revelations  should  be  read 
with  reverence  and  sympathy.  We  may  study  them 
for  our  profit,  but  not  to  satisfy  an  idle  curiosity 
May  God  give  us  the  humble  spirit  of  a  learner  as 
we  venture  to  seek  the  explanation  of  those  scenes 
in  which  the  Divine  voice  called  to  their  office  the 
holy  men  of  old  ! 

How  shall  we  pursue  this  investigation,  the  diffi- 
culty of  which  is  patent  ?  The  surest  way  is  to  take 
a  few  instances  and  study  them  inductively.  We 
shall  attain  the  clearest  conception  of  the  call  by 
a  study  of  concrete  cases.  From  this  study  we  shall 
be  able  to  gather  the  broad  principles  in  a  brief 
summary. 

There  will  be  no  danger  of  mistake  if  we  begin 
with  the  first  of  the  great  prophets,  the  herdman  of 
Tekoa.  Of  the  early  life  of  the  prophets  before 
Amos  we  know  little,  and  cannot  always  tell  how 
they  were  led  to  their  sacred  office.^     They  either 

^  Samuel,  like  Moses,  is  said  to  have  been  called  directly ;  Elisha 
was  summoned  by  the  prophet  he  was  to  succeed,  though  it  is  said  that 
Elijah  was  divinely  commanded  to  appoint  Elisha  his  successor. 


76  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

found  no  occasion  to  relate  personal  history ;  or 
as  they  did  not  themselves  write,  the  story  was 
not  preserved  by  those  who  have  given  us  such 
meagre  biographical  information  as  we  have.  Of 
the  sons  of  the  prophets  nothing  is  to  be  said,  be- 
cause their  call  consisted  in  admission  to  an  order. 
They  were  not  looked  to  for  high  service,  nor  re- 
garded by  posterity  as  channels  of  revelation.  They 
were  probably  received  into  the  order  by  the  father, 
or  chief,  and  had  no  such  direct  Divine  summons  to 
office  as  had  those  great  men  who  really  contributed 
to  the  knowledge  of  God. 

Amos  reveals  something  of  his  call  upon  two 
different  occasions.  One  of  his  allusions  throws 
light  upon  the  other,  and  though  less  significant  as  a 
source  of  information,  must  nevertheless  be  carefully 
considered.  The  call  of  Amos  is  particularly  interest- 
ing, because  he  was  not  summoned  to  a  lifelong 
service,  but  only  to  the  delivery  of  a  special  message. 
All  that  we  know  of  his  prophetic  career  occupies 
but  a  few  days.  It  is,  of  course,  not  impossible  that 
Amos  may  have  been  known  as  a  seer  to  his  fellows 
at  Tekoa  even  while  he  was  a  herdman ;  but  it  is 
highly  improbable.^ 

By  a  variety  of  figures  Amos  prepares  the  way  for 
the  account  of  his  personal  revelation.  There  is 
nothing  accidental  in  his  leaving  his  flock  in  the 
wilderness  of  Judah  to  prophesy  in  Bethel.  If  two 
persons  walk  together,  it  is  obvious  that  they  meet 

^  Kraetzschmar  says,  however,  "It  was  not  for  the  first  time  that 
Amos  had  in  this  way  appeared  openly,  but  heretofore  he  had  been 
let  alone  "  {Prophet  und  Sehcr  im  alien  Israel,  p.  i ). 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  -jj 

by  appointment.  If  the  lion  roars,  it  is  plain  that  he 
has  taken  his  prey.  If  a  bird  is  snared,  it  is  evident 
that  someone  has  set  a  trap.  If  a  trumpet  is  blown 
as  an  alarm  of  war,  it  is  not  necessary  to  hunt 
further  for  the  cause  of  the  people's  terror.  If  a 
man  prophesies  in  the  name  of  Jahveh,  the  inference 
is  plain  that  Jahveh  has  spoken  to  him.^  No  man 
can  truly  preach  unless  the  word  has  been  given  him 
from  his  God.  On  the  other  hand,  if  God  has 
spoken  to  a  human  soul,  and  revealed  things  which 
vitally  concern  the  weal  or  woe  of  the  nation,  it  is 
impossible  for  that  man  to  hold  his  peace.  As 
Emerson  put  it,  "  the  seer  must  be  a  sayer."  Amos 
only  began  to  speak  when  silence  was  no  longer 
possible. 

Amos  speaks  more  distinctly,  however,  when 
Amaziah  interrupts  his  preaching,  and  bids  him  go 
back  to  Judah,  if  he  must  needs  prophesy,  for  Bethel 
was  a  royal  sanctuary,  and  the  king  would  not 
permit  such  heavy  words  to  be  declaimed  there. 
Then  Amos  tells  the  priest  that  he  is  not  prophesy- 
ing because  prophecy  is  his  trade  and  he  must  needs 
exercise  it ;  on  the  contrary,  he  was  a  herd  man  and 
dresser  of  sycamore  trees  ;  but  Jahveh  took  him  from 
the  flock  and  bade  him  prophesy.  Nor  was  it  a 
roving  commission  which  was  entrusted  to  him. 
Jahveh  said,  "  Go,  prophesy  unto  My  people  Israel."  ^ 
That  command  could  not  be  obeyed  by  exercising 
the  office  of  a  seer  among  the  villagers  of  Tekoa,  nor 
by  adopting  the  priest's  suggestion  to  prophesy  in 
Judah.     The   Divine    commission    made    Israel    his 

^  Amos  iii.  3-8.  ^  Amos  vii.  15. 


7?>  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

objective,  and  it  was  to  Israel  that  Amos  spoke,  and 
would  continue  to  speak,  in  spite  of  the  power  of 
both  priest  and  king. 

The  prophet's  declaration,  superficially  considered, 
is  simple  enough,  God  directed  him  to  prophesy  to 
Israel,  and  he  did  as  he  was  bid.  But  must  we  be 
content  with  the  statement  which  lies  on  the  surface  ? 
May  we  not  seek  to  penetrate  further  into  the 
mystery,  so  that  we  may  more  fully  comprehend  the 
prophet's  call  to  his  great  mission  ? 

We  believe  still  in  the  Divine  call.  More  than 
ever  before  are  we  convinced  that  every  true  life 
is  a  vocation.  The  physician  is  divinely  called  to 
lengthen  and  ease  the  physical  life  ;  the  lawyer,  the 
merchant,  the  manufacturer,  the  writer,  the  carpenter, 
and  the  shoemaker,  if  they  be  true  men,  are  appointed 
of  God  to  their  several  callings.  Especially  is  woman 
called  of  God,  whether,  as  is  so  common  in  these 
days,  she  stands  as  the  competitor  of  man  in  nearly 
every  occupation  of  life,  or  whether  she  fills  her  old 
and  highest  place  as  the  light  of  a  home,  and  the 
bearer  and  best  counsellor  of  children.  We  believe 
also  that  men  are  called  to  be  prophets  to-day  as 
well  as  in  the  time  of  Jeroboam  II.  ;  and  sometimes 
we  think  the  voice  of  the  true  prophet  was  never 
more  urgently  needed.  Was  the  call  of  Amos 
different  in  kind  from  all  these  other  calls,  or  at 
most  only  in  a  degree  ?  Did  God  once  give  men 
a  specific  summons  infinitely  clearer  than  any  man 
knows  to-day  ?  Were  the  prophets  of  old  absolutely 
safeguarded  against  mistaking  their  vocation,  while 
men   of  to-day  are  honestly  doubtful  whether   the 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  79 

"  P.  C,"  which  a  man  said  he  saw  in  a  vision,  stands 
for  "  preach  Christ  "  or  "  plow  corn  "  ?  Or  can  those 
ancient  calls  be  only  rightly  explained  in  terms  of 
modern  thought? 

A  man  to-day,  however  conscientious  and  devout, 
may  be  in  the  gravest  doubt  of  the  nature  of  his  call. 
A  young  man  thinks  of  the  ministry  and  various 
other  occupations.  He  desires  to  live  an  upright 
and  a  useful  life.  He  is  ready  to  become  a  minister, 
a  merchant,  or  a  blacksmith,  if  he  can  be  assured 
that  his  mission  is  surely  one  or  another.  He  is 
persuaded  that  no  office  is  low  if  it  comes  by  Divine 
appointment ;  but  how  can  he  be  sure  what  is  God's 
purpose  for  him  ?  He  may  have  a  decided  preference 
for  a  certain  calling ;  but  can  he  be  sure  that  his 
preference  is  also  God's  ?  Or  a  young  minister  may 
be  equipped  for  his  career,  and  in  most  heartbreaking 
uncertainty  where  to  prophesy.  He  is  offered  many 
places  by  men  :  the  rector  of  a  city  parish  offers  him 
an  assistantship ;  a  vestry  elects  him  to  a  rectorate  ; 
he  is  urged  to  go  to  the  mission  field.  He  knows 
that  in  any  of  these  places  opportunity  will  not  be 
lacking  for  any  talent  he  may  possess  ;  he  is  ready 
not  to  choose,  but  to  be  chosen.  Among  the  dis- 
crepant calls  of  men,  where  is  he  to  find  the  Divine 
voice,  which  never  gives  a  roving  commission,  and 
which  never  perplexes  by  sending  two  calls  at  once  ? 
In  such  cases  we  cannot  depend  upon  hearing  the 
objective  voice  of  God,  telling  us  to  go  prophesy  to 
Israel.  It  seems,  therefore,  as  if  the  Hebrew  prophets 
had  a  great  advantage  over  their  poor  modern 
successors.     But  was   it  really  so  ?     Did  they  hear 


8o  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

a  voice  which  is  no  longer  audible  even  to  the  most 
devoutly  inclined  ear  ?  Or  were  they  constrained 
to  undergo  the  same  confusing  experience  as  our- 
selves, and  leave  us  the  record  not  of  the  grave 
problem,  but  only  of  its  clear  and  final  solution  ? 

Amos  was  absolutely  convinced  that  he  was  called 
of  God  to  prophesy  to  Israel.  Nothing  could  have 
shaken  his  faith  in  his  vocation.  We  do  certainly 
believe  that  he  was  not  mistaken.  However  strange 
the  course  of  our  interpretation  of  this  call  may  seem, 
we  wish  to  keep  this  as  our  guiding  principle  :  Amos 
was  really  called  of  God. 

Yet  we  shall  fail  to  reach  the  psychological  ex- 
planation of  that  call  if  we  do  not  bear  in  mind  the 
fact  that  we  are  dealing  with  a  foreign  people  and 
a  distant  time.  The  religious  language  of  the  eighth 
century  before  Christ  is  not  the  same  as  the  religious 
language  of  the  twentieth  century  after  Christ ;  and 
the  Hebrews  did  not  speak  the  English  tongue,  nor 
did  they  think  English  thoughts.  To  understand  the 
facts  of  the  earlier  life  of  the  Orientals  we  must 
translate  their  speech  into  the  language  of  the  later 
life  of  the  Occidentals.  The  failure  to  do  that  has 
led  to  confusion  and  error  in  the  past,  and  will  do 
so  again  in  the  present  unless  we  are  on  our  guard. 

As  I  have  before  intimated,  Amos  gives  us  a  hint, 
in  Oriental  language,  indeed,  which  may  lead  us  to 
understand  the  truth.  He  said  he  must  prophesy 
because  God  had  spoken  ;  in  plain  terms,  he  means 
that  he  perceived  a  condition  of  things  to  which  his 
Israelite  neighbours  were  blind.  This  herdman  was 
a  man  quite  beyond  the  ordinary.     He  had  eyes  to 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  8i 

see,  and  he  saw.  His  contemporaries  were  rejoicing 
in  a  peaceful  period,  and  were  quite  blind  to  the 
political  movements  which  indicated  that  the  present 
happy  situation  could  not  last  long.  Amos  beheld 
a  nation  revelling  riotously  in  a  prosperous  day,  and 
laying  up  no  stores  against  the  troubled  night  which 
was  pressing  near.  The  insight  was  the  call  of 
God  ;  God  showed  him  the  true  condition  :  that  dis- 
closure was  a  command  to  warn  those  who  were  in 
peril. 

The  herdman  was,  moreover,  deeply  religious  and 
conspicuously  moral.  He  had  watched  the  course 
of  the  world's  history  and  had  reflected  upon  God's 
government.  He  was  persuaded  that  all  the  world- 
movements  were  in  the  hands  of  Jahveh.  He  rose 
above  his  times  in  that  conception.  Jahveh  had, 
indeed,  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  but  His  part  in 
the  great  movements  did  not  stop  with  that.  Logically 
it  could  not  stop  with  that,  and  Amos  was  as  relent- 
less in  following  conclusions  to  their  end  as  Calvin. 
If  Jahveh  could  bring  a  nation  from  Egypt,  He  was 
more  than  a  mere  national  God  ;  for  that  fact  pre- 
supposes a  control  of  Egypt  as  well  as  of  Israel. 
Therefore  it  was  His  hand  also  that  brought  the 
Philistines  from  Caphtor,  and  the  Syrians  from  Kir. 
And  it  was  His  hand  that  would  bring  the  Assyrians 
upon  Israel. 

There  was  another  great  idea  which  God  breathed 
into  the  soul  of  this  Tekoan  seer :  the  basis  of  the 
Divine  judgments  was  ethical,  not  racial.  This  simple 
herdman  rose  entirely  above  the  notion,  so  common 
even  in  much  later  ages,  that  God  looked  toward  His 

G 


82  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

people  as  a  parent  looks  who  is  blinded  by  blood- 
relationship,  and  so  will  defend  an  abandoned  son  in 
his  wantonness.  The  people  might  still  believe  that 
Jahveh  would  protect  His  own,  and  fight  their  battles 
against  any  foreign  people,  whether  Israel  was  faithful 
or  not.  Amos  had  no  such  idea.  Damascus  would 
be  punished  because  of  its  barbarous  cruelty,  Gaza 
because  of  its  indulgence  in  an  inhuman  slave  trade, 
and  other  nations  for  similar  offences  against  sound 
morality.  Israel  also  was  steeped  in  wrong.  This 
people  had  sold  the  righteous  for  silver  and  the  needy 
for  a  pair  of  shoes ;  they  had  made  the  Nazirites 
drunk  in  violation  of  their  vows ;  they  had  silenced 
the  voice  of  those  who  were  ordained  of  God  to 
speak.  Punishment  was  just  as  certain  for  Israel  as 
for  Damascus,  aye,  more  certain  ;  for  their  superior 
relation  to  Jahveh,  and  greater  knowledge  of  His 
holy  ways,  aggravated  their  offence.  Damascus 
might  plead  ignorance,  but  Israel  had  sinned  against 
the  light. 

This,  then,  in  a  word,  is  the  picture  seen  by  the 
keen  eye  of  the  prophet  of  Tekoa :  a  nation  steeped 
in  all  manner  of  vice,  utterly  disregardful  of  the 
sword  hanging  over  their  head,  and  not  a  voice  raised 
to  show  them  their  peril,  and  so  to  turn  them  from 
their  sin.  Amos  saw  all  this  plainly.  Many  a  day 
must  he  have  reflected  upon  the  unhappy  condition 
of  Israel  Could  not  a  voice  sound  the  alarm  so  that 
the  nation  would  turn  from  their  sin  ?  There  was  no 
such  voice  in  all  the  nation.  What  the  people  were 
doing  to  avert  the  Divine  punishment  was  useless. 
They  were  attempting  to  pacify  a  God  inflamed  by 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  83 

righteous  wrath  with  sacrifices  and  sacred  song.  They 
offered  bullocks  in  place  of  obedience,  the  fat  of  rams 
in  place  of  hearkening.  This  seer  could  hear  the 
cry  from  Heaven,  "  Take  thou  away  from  Me  the 
noise  of  thy  songs  .  .  .  and  let  justice  roll  down  as 
waters,  and  righteousness  as  a  mighty  stream."  ^ 

What  a  moment  it  must  have  been  to  Amos  when 
the  question  first  forced  its  way  to  recognition: 
"Why  do  fou  not  warn  Israel?"  It  was  easy  for 
him  to  object :  "  I  am  no  prophet,  or  prophet's  son  ; 
I  have  no  commission  to  speak  in  God's  name."  But 
the  rejoinder  was  inevitable  :  "Your  assumed  impedi- 
ment is  really  an  important  qualification.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  prophetic  order  are  at  a  disadvantage. 
They  do  not  see  as  you  do,  because  they  look  too 
much  with  professional  eyes.  They  are  bound  up 
with  the  State,  so  that  frankness  would  lead  to  a  per- 
secution which  they  are  not  strong  enough  to  face. 
You  are  free  and  brave,  and  you  understand." 

Over  and  over  again,  by  day  and  by  night,  such 
thoughts  must  have  .troubled  the  soul  of  the  seer, 
until  the  truth  flashed  upon  him  which  ended  inward 
discussion  and  led  to  obedient  action.  He  came  to 
see  that  just  as  Jahveh  leads  a  nation  from  Egypt,  or 
sends  the  Assyrians  to  chastise  Damascus,  so  was  the 
Divine  voice  calling  him  to  preach.  The  difficulties 
and  dangers  were  as  plain  as  before ;  but  they  no 
longer  constituted  an  obstacle.  The  prophet  per- 
ceived that  when  God  gives  a  man  insight,  the  gift  is 
not  for  selfish  enjoyment,  but  for  use.  In  his  clear 
perception  of  the  perilous  situation  and  sore  need  of 

^  Amos  V.  23  f. 


84  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Israel,  he  saw  the  call  of  God:  "Jahveh  God  hath 
spoken  ;  who  can  but  prophesy  ?  "  ^ 

Such  an  interpretation  of  Amos's  call  as  I  have 
given  may  still  be  unwelcome  to  some,  because,  as  it 
seems  to  them,  it  is  one  of  the  countless  ways  in 
which  modern  critics  are  taking  the  supernatural  out 
of  the  Bible.  I  must  say  frankly  that  in  this  study 
I  am  searching  primarily  for  truth,  and  not  for 
welcome  truth,  or  harmless  truth,  or  truth  qualified  in 
any  way  whatsoever.  Truth  ought  always  to  be 
welcome ;  it  certainly  is  not  only  harmless,  but  is 
the  most  helpful  of  all  things.  Yet  I  should  be  quite 
devoid  of  a  sympathetic  spirit  if  I  did  not  desire  so 
to  present  what  I  believe  to  be  true  that  my  presenta- 
tion shall  edify  faith  rather  than  destroy  it. 

That  God  should  pronounce  in  objective  audible 
words  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  "  Go  prophesy  to 
Israel,"  is  regarded  as  supernatural.  There  is  an 
element  of  the  miraculous  in  it,  and  it  is  an 
apologetic  support  for  faith.  That  God  should  have 
inspired  Amos  in  some  such  way  as  I  have  indicated 
is  natural,  and  therefore  apologetically  worthless. 
The  prophet  becomes  only  an  enlightened  man,  and 

^  Amos  iii.  8.  VVellhausen  gives  an  entirely  different  turn  to  this 
passage.  He  emends  the  text  and  interprets  thus  :  "The  Lord  Jahveh 
speaks  (through  the  prophets) ;  who  shall  not  tremble?"  {Die  kkinen 
Propheten,  p.  75.)  I  can  only  say  here  that  there  is  no  warrant  for  the 
emendation  except  that  it  completes  a  parallelism  ;  and  that  I  agree 
with  G.  A.  Smith  that  thus  to  alter  the  text  is  "to  blunt  the  point  of 
the  argument."  Amos  at  this  point  is  referring  to  the  voice  of  Jahveh 
which  he  heard,  not  what  the  people  heard.  Wellhausen  is  influenced 
by  his  desire  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  word  of  Jahveh  and  the 
message  of  the  prophets  are  not  distinguishable.  His  text  is  followed 
by  Nowack,  but  rejected  by  Marti. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  85 

down  he  tumbles  from  the  high  pedestal  upon  which 
a  portion  of  the  Protestant  world  has  placed  him. 
But  facts  are  stubborn  things.  In  the  one  case  there 
is  consistency  with  all  that  we  know  of  God's  dealings 
with  man,  which  is  not  by  precept,  but  by  inspiration. 
This  method  is  likewise  consistent  with  our  highest 
conception  of  God,  a  Spirit  guiding  the  world  upward 
by  spiritual  influences  upon  souls  kindred  to  Himself. 
And  God  is  "the  same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  for 
ever."i 

But  why  did  not  the  prophet  tell  us  plainly  what 
happened,  instead  of  misleading  us  by  doubtful 
words?  The  difficulty  is  with  our  understanding 
rather  than  with  Amos's  statement.  I  suppose  that 
every  Israelite  to  whom  he  spoke  in  Bethel  under- 
stood exactly  what  the  prophet  meant.  Those 
people  were  accustomed  to  the  direct  ascription  to 
God  of  what  we  call  natural  forces.  The  thunder 
was  the  voice  of  God  just  as  truly  as  the  still  whisper 
in  the  soul.  Then  again  this  preacher  had  no  time 
and  no  occasion  to  tell  the  whole  story  of  the  process 
by  which  his  conclusion  was  reached,  but  only  to 
state  the  final  truth.  In  conclusion,  let  me  say,  and 
say  as  strongly  as  possible,  that  the  man  who  does 
not  see  the  agency  of  God  in  the  call  of  Amos, 
supposing  my  interpretation  right,  must  have  a  faith 
sorely  in  need  of  props ;  for  how  otherwise  can  he 
possibly  believe  in  the  agency  of  God  in  the  affairs 
of  men  to-day  ? 

How  different  was  the  call  of  Hosea,  a  native 
Israelite,  who  put  on  the  prophetic  mantle  shortly 

^  Heb.  xiii.  8. 


S6  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

after  Amos  was  permitted  to  lay  it  aside.  God  leads 
many  men  by  many  paths.  O  that  men  could  see 
when  God  is  leading,  that  they  might  follow  as  Amos 
and  Hosea  did  !  Amos  was  led  to  prophesy  by 
reason  of  divinely  given  insight ;  Hosea  was  directed 
to  the  same  task  by  domestic  affliction  of  the  sorest 
kind  which  can  come  to  an  upright  soul. 

The  sad  facts  of  Hosea's  life,  so  far  as  he  has  dis- 
closed them  to  us,  are  briefly  these.  He  married 
a  woman  whom  he  tenderly  loved.  Gomer  the 
daughter  of  Diblaim  bore  the  prophet  two  sons  and 
a  daughter,^  whose  symbolic  names^  show  that  already 
God's  hand  was  at  work  upon  this  choice  spirit. 

While  these  children  were  still  young,  came  the 
heart-breaking  discovery  to  the  loving  husband  that 
his  wife  was  unfaithful.  So  abandoned  did  she  be- 
come that  she  left  Hosea's  home  and  indulged  in 
riotous  living  with  her  paramours,  until  the  inevitable 
end  was  reached  by  her  sale  into  slavery. 

Nothing  would  have  been  easier  for  Hosea  than  to 
have  written  a  divorce,  and  closed  his  house  and  heart 
against  his  faithless  spouse  for  ever.  But  real  love  can- 
not always  be  eradicated  by  a  bill  of  divorce.  In  spite 
of  her  wantonness,  Hosea  loved  the  wife  of  his  youth. 
He  bought  her  back  from  the  bondage  into  which 
she  had  fallen,  and  put  her  under  restraint ;  if  that 

^  G.  A.  Smith  holds  that  Jezreel  alone  was  Hosea's  child,  and  that 
therefore  Corner's  infidelity  began  soon  after  marriage.  In  the  case  of 
Jezreel  it  is  said  that  Gomer  "conceived  and  bore  him  a  son"  (Hosea 
i.  3).  This  "  him  "  is  lacking  in  the  account  of  the  birth  of  the  other 
children.  But  the  omission  may  be  accidental,  or  at  least  not  so  full  of 
meaning  as  Smith  supposes. 

^  Jezreel,  Lo-ruhamah  (uncompassionated),  and  Lo-'ammi  (not  my 
people) ;  see  Hosea  i.  3-9. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  87 

did  not  turn  her  heart  back  to  her  husband,  at  least 
it  made  indulgence  in  her  favourite  vice  impossible. 

Space  will  not  permit  a  discussion  of  the  strife  over 
the  interpretation  of  this  story,  nor  is  it  necessary  for 
my  purpose.  The  reader  will  find  ample  treatment 
in  the  recent  commentaries  and  other  books  on  the 
prophets.  For  myself,  I  can  only  say  that  I  agree  on 
the  one  hand  with  those  who  deem  it  impossible  for 
God  to  demand  of  a  keenly  affectionate  soul  that  he 
should  take  a  prostitute  to  his  bosom,  and  on  the 
other  hand  with  those  who  cannot  be  satisfied  with 
the  idea  that  this  story  is  an  allegory,  but  insist  that 
it  is  the  real  record  of  the  prophet's  life.^ 

As  I  have  indicated  above,  Comer's  unfaithfulness 
developed  after  her  marriage. 

The  command  "Co,  take  thee  a  prostitute  wife"- 
is  an  instance  common  enough  in  prophecy,  of  inter- 
preting an  early  experience  in  the  light  of  later  know- 
ledge. It  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  Comer  was 
bad  when  Hosea  married  her,  though  many  have  held 
that  strange  view. 

The  explanation  of  the  prophet's  persistent  efforts 

^  There  are  in  the  main  three  interpretations  of  this  story,  (i)  That 
it  is  wholly  allegorical.  Hosea  invents  it  to  describe  the  infidelity  of 
Israel.  But  as  G.  A.  Smith  says,  it  "  would  be  strange  for  Hosea  to  tell 
such  a  record  of  his  wife  if  false,  or,  if  he  was  unmarried,  about  himself." 
(2)  That  it  is  wholly  literal.  God,  indeed,  lays  heavy  burdens  upon 
His  servants,  but  we  should  require  greater  evidence  than  we  have  to 
believe  that  He  demanded  that  a  pure  man  should  take  a  foul  woman  to 
his  breast.  (3)  That  the  experience  is  real,  but  to  be  interpreted  with 
discretion.  The  main  point  is  that  Gomer  was  pure,  or  thought  to  be 
pure  by  Hosea,  and  fell  into  wrong  after  marriage.  This  view  has 
rapidly  gained  acceptance  since  its  convincing  presentation  by  W. 
Robertson  Smith  in  his  Prophets  of  Israel. 

^  Hosea  i.  2. 


88  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

to  reclaim  his  fallen  wife,  and  the  proof  that  she  had 
been  a  pure  bride,  are  to  be  found  in  his  inextinguish- 
able love  for  her,  Hosea  might  have  taken  a  prosti- 
tute to  wife  at  the  Divine  command,  but  no  power  in 
earth  or  heaven  could  have  kindled  such  a  love  as  he 
felt  for  Gomer,  if  the  object  of  it  had  been  already 
a  fallen  woman.  Love  in  many  cases  proves  unable 
to  endure  any  very  great  strain,  A  father  loves  a  son 
until  the  boy  goes  badly  astray,  and  then  the  once  fond 
parent  turns  him  out  of  doors  without  compunction. 
A  man  and  woman  really  seem  to  be  a  loving  pair 
during  courtship  and  honeymoon.  Soon  afterwards 
they  may  face  each  other  in  a  divorce  court  with  the 
most  implacable  hatred.  But  there  are  some  natures 
in  which  love  takes  a  deeper  root,  and  can  never  be 
eradicated.  A  mother  often  tenderly  loves  a  son  who 
breaks  her  heart.  A  wife  may  continue  to  love  a 
man,  in  spite  of  everything  on  his  part  to  destroy  her 
affection.  Such  a  love  as  Hosea's  is  beyond  question 
uncommon,  but  is  by  no  means  so  impossible  a  feat 
as  to  be  explicable  only  as  fiction. 

What  has  this  essay  on  love  to  do  with  Hosea's 
call  ?  Much  every  way.  Hosea  must  have  struggled 
many  a  time  with  those  troublesome  questions  which 
arise  in  afflicted  souls  :  Why  does  my  God  whom  I 
devotedly  serve  suffer  my  lot  to  be  so  rough  ?  Why 
is  my  heart,  so  full  of  a  pure  passion,  denied  a  worthy 
object  ?  Why  am  I  unable  to  tear  out  this  passion 
from  my  soul,  and  allow  the  profligate  to  meet  the 
doom  she  so  richly  deserves  ? 

Then  some  day  the  explanation  came  to  Hosea 
with  the  fearful  force  with  which  great  truths  break 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  89 

into  human  souls.  This  hard  life  of  mine  is  history 
in  miniature  of  God's  relation  to  this  nation.  Jahveh 
loved  Israel  in  her  youth,  and  brought  her  from 
Egypt  to  be  His  own  people.  How  sadly  Israel  has 
requited  this  love.  She  has  played  the  harlot  with 
Baals,  and  has  fallen  into  every  manner  of  sin.  Will 
Jahveh  cast  her  off  as  utterly  abandoned  and  worth- 
less, and  let  her  meet  her  just  doom  ?  No  ;  Jahveh 
will  punish  His  unfaithful  spouse,  but  He  loves  her 
in  spite  of  her  infidelity,  and  will  reclaim  her,  and 
take  her  back  purified  into  His  bosom.^ 

Having  grasped  that  truth,  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
he  must  preach  it  to  the  people.  "Jahveh  hath 
spoken  ;  who  can  but  prophesy  ? "  The  burden  of 
Hosea's  message  is  drawn  from  his  own  unhappy 
life.  The  very  bitterness  of  his  own  estate  opened 
his  eyes  to  the  great  facts  about  God  and  Israel.  If 
only  Gomer  could  see  the  matter  as  Hosea  saw  it ! 
If  only  Israel  could  see  the  matter  as  God  saw  it ! 
Hosea  sees  it  as  God  sees  it,  and  God's  mission  for 
him  is  to  make  Israel's  eyes  like  his  own. 

In  the  opening  of  his  eyes  he  discovers  the  provi- 
dence in  his  own  affairs.  The  prophet  looks  back 
upon  his  life,  which  had  first  explained  a  portion  of 
God's  life,  and  now  in  the  light  of  that  truth  about 
God  he  understands  what  before  had  been  so  mys- 
terious  in   his   own   sufferings.      In  realising  God's 

^  Long  afterward  a  prophet  greater  than  Hosea  draws  a  brief 
picture  of  Jahveh's  patient  endurance  of  His  unfaithful  bride.  "Where 
is  the  bill  of  your  mother's  divorcement,  wherewith  I  have  put  her 
away?"  (Isa.  1.  i).  This  implies,  of  course,  that  Jahveh  had  not  put 
her  away.  The  unknown  prophet  of  the  exile  evidently  was  familiar 
with  Hosea. 


90  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

pain  he  came  to  understand  his  own.  God  had  used 
his  afflictions  to  open  his  eyes.  The  rod  was  laid 
upon  his  back,  that  out  of  his  very  pain  should  come 
the  inspiration  to  a  Hfe  and  work  in  harmony  with 
the  plans  of  God.^  God  had  called  Hosea  to  prophesy, 
as  He  calls  all  men,  from  the  day  of  his  birth ;  but 
the  prophet  did  not  hear  the  call  at  first.  He  had 
other  purposes  in  life.  He  married  and  begot  children, 
and  started  at  least  in  his  own  way.  The  prophetic 
office  in  the  time  of  Hosea  had  even  less  attraction 
for  an  ambitious  and  capable  man  than  the  ministry 
has  in  our  day.  But  God's  voice  is  not  always 
silenced  with  a  first  refusal.  The  child  Samuel  may 
at  first  mistake  the  voice  of  God  for  that  of  Eli ;  but 
every  time  he  lies  down  to  resume  his  broken  sleep 
the  voice  sounds  again,  and  will  sound  until  it  is 
answered,  or  an  answer  made  impossible.  So  the 
call  was  ever  pressing  upon  the  heart  of  Hosea,  and 
when  personal  misery  brought  him  low,  in  the  quiet 
reflection  which  comes  with  great  sorrow,  the  voice 
was  heard  and  heeded. 

God's  hand  reaches  out  for  all  kinds  of  men. 
Elisha  was  taken  from  the  plow,  Amos  from  the 
herd,  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  from  the  priesthood, 
Matthew  from  the  tax  office,  the  sons  of  Zebedee 
from  the  fishing  boats,  Zephaniah  probably  from  the 
royal  palace.^      But  among  them  all,  high  and  low, 

^  In  Hosea  i.  2  we  read  :  "  The  beginning  of  Jahveh's  speaking  by 
Hosea  :  Jahveh  said  to  Hosea,  Go.  take  to  thee  a  prostitute  wife."  In 
the  light  of  his  bitter  experience  the  prophet  sees  that  the  whole  course 
of  his  life  was  providentially  leading  to  the  present  climax. 

^  Zephaniah  was  probably  the  great-great-grandson  of  King  Heze- 
kiah  (see  Zeph.  i.  i,  and  A.  B.  Davidson  in  Camb.  Bible). 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  91 

God  never  laid  His  hand  upon  a  more  accomplished 
man  than  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz. 

Isaiah  appears  to  have  been  highly  educated,  like 
St.  Paul  ;  but  his  training  was  not  so  narrow  and 
partisan  as  Paul's.  He  was  a  man  of  such  diversified 
talents  that  education  was  inevitable.  Wherever 
there  is  a  genuine  thirst  for  knowledge,  means  to 
satisfy  it  are  certain  to  be  found.  God  selects 
choice  spirits  for  His  greatest  service,  even  though 
they  are  often  found  in  humble  stations.  God  looks 
at  the  heart  and  requires  fitness  for  the  task  in  hand. 
At  the  time  Uzziah  died  Jerusalem  was  a  cultured  city. 
Court  and  people  had  grown  out  of  the  crude  condi- 
tions of  earlier  days,  and  had  made  long  strides  towards 
a  high  civilisation.  The  man  who  could  get  the  ear 
of  this  people  must  be  one  whose  culture  and  natural 
abilities  would  at  once  mark  him  as  a  leader  among 
men.  There  was  probably  no  one  in  Jerusalem  who 
more  exactly  met  the  requirements  than  Isaiah  the 
son  of  Amoz ;  and  to  him  God's  finger  beckoned. 

The  story  of  his  call  to  the  prophetic  office  is  found 
in  the  sixth  chapter  of  his  prophecies,  rather  than  in 
the  first,  as  we  might  expect.  This  order  is  signifi- 
cant. It  is  plain  that  the  prophet  originally  had  no 
intention  of  revealing  that  inward  personal  struggle, 
the  outcome  of  which  was  his  complete  yielding  to 
the  Divine  will.  Only  when  the  time  came  that  the 
publishing  of  his  personal  relation  to  God  might  add 
force  to  the  words  spoken  by  His  command  was  he 
constrained  to  lay  bare  that  scene  in  the  temple 
which  determined  finally  the  course  of  his  life.  We 
will  read  his  story  in  his  own  words. 


92  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

"In  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died  :  at  that  time  I 
saw  the  Lord  seated  upon  a  lofty  and  exalted  throne, 
and  His  train  filled  the  temple.  Seraphim  were 
standing  above  Him,  each  with  six  wings :  with  two 
he  covered  his  face,  with  two  he  covered  his  feet, 
and  two  he  used  for  flight.  One  cried  to  the  other 
and  said  :  Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  Jahveh  Sabaoth  :  His 
glory  fills  the  whole  earth.  The  foundations  of  the 
thresholds  shook  with  the  noise  of  the  one  crying, 
and  the  house  was  filled  with  smoke. 

"And  I  said,  Woe  unto  me  :  I  am  undone  ;  for  I 
am  a  man  unclean  of  lips,  and  dwell  among  a  people 
unclean  of  lips,  and  yet  my  eyes  have  looked  upon 
King  Jahveh  Sabaoth.  Then  one  of  the  seraphim 
flew  unto  me,  holding  in  his  hand  a  hot  stone  which 
he  had  taken  from  the  altar  with  tongs.  He  touched 
my  mouth  and  said  :  Lo,  this  has  touched  thy  lips,  so 
that  thy  iniquity  is  removed  and  thy  uncleanness  is 
absolved. 

"  Then  I  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  saying : 
Whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  ?  And  I 
spoke  :  Behold  me,  send  me.  And  He  said,  Go,  and 
say  to  this  people,  Hear  with  the  ear,  but  do  not 
comprehend,  and  see  with  the  eye,  but  do  not  gain 
knowledge."  ^ 

But  one  might  well  ask  us,  as  Philip  asked  the 
Ethiopian  proselyte,  "  Understandest  thou  what  thou 
readest  ?  "  Isaiah  was  an  ancient  Oriental,  and  spoke 
the  language  of  his  time  and  of  his  people.  His 
thoughts  were  not  like  ours,  and  his  way  of  stating 
things  was  by  no  means   modern.     From   a  literal 

^  Isa.  vi.  i-g. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  93 

understanding  of  this  story  the  conclusion  has  been 
drawn  that  the  whole  problem  of  Isaiah's  life  was 
raised  and  settled  in  the  few  moments  he  spent  in 
the  temple,  during  which  he  actually  saw  with  human 
eye  the  God  of  Israel.  But  such  an  inference  is  quite 
unnatural,  and  is  highly  improbable. 

Isaiah  had  seen  the  necessity  of  a  voice  lifted  up  in 
the  cause  of  righteousness.  Many  times  the  thought 
must  have  forced  itself  upon  him,  that  he  was  him- 
self the  man  to  whom  Jahveh  pointed  as  the  fit 
leader  in  a  movement  to  guide  the  State  and  people 
according  to  Divine  principles.  But  there  was  a 
serious  objection,  the  same  which  has  been  felt  by 
every  right-minded  man  who  is  called  to  a  holy 
office — that  is,  personal  unfitness.  Not  only  did  he 
dwell  among  a  people  whose  lips  were  unclean,  but 
unhappily  his  own  were  in  the  same  condition.  What- 
ever else  it  ought  to  be,  the  mouth  which  proclaims 
God's  message  to  the  world  should  be  clean.  How 
was  he,  conscious  of  a  beam  in  his  own  eye,  to  have 
the  clear  vision  necessary  to  remove  the  mote  from 
his  brothers'  eyes  ? 

But  God's  call  is  inexorable.  Nothing  more  surely 
marks  the  Divine  voice  in  a  great  soul  than  its  per- 
sistence. Isaiah  might  have  stilled  the  voice  by 
absolutely  disregarding  and  defying  it.  But  he  was 
a  true  man,  of  devout  spirit,  and  was  at  least  ready  to 
listen.  He  went  to  the  temple,  as  apparently  was 
his  custom  when  in  perplexity,  that  he  might,  in  that 
sacred  place,  pour  out  his  soul  to  Jahveh.  The  hand 
of  God  pursues  him  in  the  sanctuary.  As  he  prays 
he  sees  a  vision  with  that  inner  eye  which  is  some- 


94  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

times  more  truthful  in  its  sight  than  the  outward  eye. 
The  sight  of  God  fills  him  with  the  terror  which 
it  inspired  in  every  Hebrew.  How  could  sinful  eyes 
look  upon  the  holy  God  without  peril  ?  The  personal 
disqualification  which  had  long  stood  in  the  way  of 
obedience  is  put  now  in  the  specific  form  of  the 
unclean  lips.  God  meets  the  objection  by  sending 
a  seraph  to  remove  the  taint.  The  effect  reaches 
further  than  the  lips.  The  prophet's  hearing  also 
has  been  made  acute  by  the  purification.  God  needs 
but  to  touch  one  part  and  man  is  every  whit  clean.^ 
Isaiah  hears  again  the  Lord  calling  for  a  volunteer : 
"  Whom  shall  I  send  ? "  The  obstacle  which  had 
hindered  him  so  long  has  been  swept  away.  Peace 
has  come  to  the  perplexed  soul.  Duty  is  clear  now, 
and  there  is  the  impulse  to  follow  it  at  any  cost. 
"  Here  am  I,  send  me."  The  uncertainty  of  weeks, 
and  perhaps  of  months,  is  all  gone.  Isaiah  comes 
from  the  temple  with  his  life's  work  settled.  How- 
ever resolutely  he  had  stood  against  former  calls  to 
the  prophetic  office,  he  succumbs  completely  now, 
and  henceforth  gives  himself  to  the  proclaiming  of 
God's  message  to  the  world. 

That  this  call  was  supernatural  in  the  true  sense  of 
being  Divine,  is  as  unquestionable  to  me  as  it  was  to 
its  object.  But  that  its  manner  of  operation  was  not 
essentially  different  from  thousands  of  other  calls  is  a 
truth  too  important  to  be  lightly  thrust  aside.  God 
has  been  calling  men  to  His  service  all  through  the 
ages.  Doubtless  there  is  a  personal  appropriateness 
in  the  form  of  every  call.     Nevertheless  God  is  the 

^  John  xiii.  lO. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  95 

same  in  all  ages  ;  man  is  man  in  all  ages  ;  and  the 
Divine  influence  upon  the  soul  is  substantially  the 
same.  We  can  have  no  purpose  to  lower  Isaiah's 
call.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe  the  right  explanation 
raises  it.  It  is  a  greater  thing  that  God  keeps  every 
planet  in  its  place  than  that  He  should  disarrange 
the  system  by  the  temporary  stopping  of  one  of 
them.  The  speaking  of  God  to  every  soul  that 
listens  is  vastly  more  supernatural,  to  use  a  too 
hackneyed  term,  than  the  speaking  only  to  a  soul 
now  and  then.  The  important  thing  about  such 
a  call  is  its  reality.  It  is  a  bad  condition  for  a  man 
to  be  a  blacksmith  whom  God  calls  to  be  a  carpenter  ; 
it  is  much  worse  to  be  a  prophet  contrary  to  the 
Divine  will.  Isaiah's  call  was  real.  It  led  him  to  his 
true  life,  and  for  forty  years  he  was  the  leading  figure 
in  the  Jewish  Church,  if  not  in  the  Jewish  State. 

This  chapter  is  growing  apace  in  spite  of  my  efforts 
to  be  brief  But  room  must  be  made  for  an  account 
of  the  summons  of  one  other  prophet,  one  of  the 
most  interesting  of  all  the  men  of  God  of  the  olden 
time,  a  man  whose  whole  life  was  a  martyrdom,  who 
saw  all  his  efforts  apparently  come  to  naught,  who 
watched  the  State  decline  and  then  go  to  ruin,  and 
who  was  conscious  of  the  degradation  of  the  popular 
religion — Jeremiah  of  Anathoth, 

Jeremiah  was  a  priest,  and  seemingly  derived  his 
support  from  the  revenues  of  an  order  which  he  did 
not  hesitate  to  expose  with  vigour.  Whether  he 
exercised  the  priestly  office  in  his  younger  days  we 
do  not  know.  But  we  do  know  that  God  had  more 
important  business  for  him  than  killing  animals  or 


96  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

laying  fire  upon  the  sacred  altar.  This  prophet  has 
told  us  of  his  call,  and  we  turn  first  of  all  to  his  own 
story. 

In  the  thirteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Josiah 
(B.C.  626)  "  the  word  of  Jahveh  came  to  me  thus  : 
Before  I  formed  thee  in  the  belly  I  knew  thee,  and 
before  thou  camest  from  the  womb,  I  sanctified  thee ; 
a  prophet  to  the  nations  I  have  made  thee. 

"  Then  I  said,  Alas,  Lord  Jahveh  :  Lo,  I  have  no 
ability  in  speaking  ;  for  I  am  but  a  youth. 

"  But  Jahveh  said  unto  me,  Do  not  say,  I  am  but  a 
youth  :  for  to  all  that  I  send  thee,  thou  shalt  go  ;  and 
all  that  I  command  thee  thou  shalt  speak.  Have  no 
fear  because  of  them  :  for  I  shall  be  with  thee  to 
deliver  thee  :  utterance  of  Jahveh. 

"  Then  Jahveh  put  forth  His  hand  and  touched  my 
mouth  ;  and  Jahveh  said  unto  me,  Lo,  I  have  put 
My  words  in  thy  mouth.  See,  I  have  appointed  thee 
this  day  over  the  nations  and  over  the  kingdoms,  to 
pluck  up  and  to  destroy,  to  tear  down  and  to  root 
out,  to  build  and  to  plant."^ 

We  find  here  unusually  full  information  about  the 
young  priest's  struggle  before  he  was  willing  to  lay 
aside  the  ephod  for  the  hairy  mantle.  Jeremiah  was 
as  much  a  fatalist  as  the  average  Oriental.  God's 
summons  to  him  was  no  sudden  impulse.  Before  he 
was  born  he  was  destined  of  Jahveh  to  this  high  but 
dangerous  ofifice.  The  young  priest  seemed  to  feel 
the  hand  of  destiny  upon  him,  but  the  present  im- 
pulse to  begin  prophesying  seemed  to  him  prema- 
ture.    He  was  but  a  youth,  which  may  mean  that  he 

^  Jer.  i.  4-10. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  97 

was  still  too  young,  or  that  he  as  yet  had  risen  to  but 
a  subordinate  position  in  the  priestly  order ;  or  it 
may  very  likely  include  both  objections.  When  he 
attains  riper  years  and  has  reached  a  more  prominent 
position  in  his  order,  then  he  can  begin  more  auspi- 
ciously the  almost  impossible  task  assigned  to  him. 

That  objection  would  have  validity  if  God  sent 
a  prophet  into  the  world,  and  then  abandoned  him  to 
his  fate,  as  He  was  once  supposed  to  have  created 
a  world,  and,  when  it  was  once  set  going,  had  with- 
drawn His  hand  for  ever.  But  the  prophet's  con- 
nexion with  God  was  constant.  God's  words  would 
ever  be  placed  in  his  mouth,  and  he  had  but  to  let 
them  come  out.  Such  statements  as  this  have  been 
misunderstood  by  men  unconscious  of  the  Oriental 
manner  of  speech,  and  who  have  taken  the  words  too 
literally.  Interpreted  in  that  way  they  lay  a  fine 
foundation  for  a  strict  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration. 

But  we  have  no  ground  to  take  them  in  that  way. 
Jeremiah  himself  has  supplied  the  corrective  for  that 
slavish  literalism.  Years  later  he  compares  the  mes- 
sage of  God  to  a  fire  in  his  bones.  He  had  reached 
the  determination  to  quit  his  unwelcome  office  with 
its  dreary  messages  of  woe.  It  was  easy  to  form  that 
resolution,  but  it  was  not  so  easy  to  extinguish  that 
fire  in  the  bones,  that  is,  the  Divine  impulse  to  speak 
out  the  truth  bravely,  whether  the  truth  would  kindle 
hope  or  plunge  into  despair, 

Jeremiah's  call  is  not  limited  to  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  On  the  contrary,  he  is  established  as  a 
prophet  to  the  nations  and  kingdoms  of  the  world. 
In  his  day  the  truth  was  well  established  that  Jahveh 


98  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

was  no  mere  national  God.  The  whole  world  was 
subject  to  His  will.  The  prophet  could  have  no 
narrower  interest  than  his  God ;  therefore  while 
primarily  concerned  with  the  fate  of  his  own  people, 
Jeremiah's  interest  was  world-wide. 

Jeremiah  had  been  born  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh. 
In  those  days  the  man  who  prophesied  took  his  life 
in  his  hand.  The  soldier's  office  was  less  hazardous 
than  the  prophet's,  for  the  soldier's  enemies  were  all 
in  his  front.  Conditions  became  more  peaceful 
under  the  youthful  Josiah,  but  Jeremiah  knew  that 
Josiah  could  not  live  for  ever,  and  the  story  of  his 
call  appears  not  to  have  been  written  till  its  author 
had  experienced  the  bitterness  of  persecution,  and 
thus  his  account  is  influenced  by  his  later  hardships. 
Jahveh  guaranteed  not  only  that  Jeremiah  should 
never  lack  a  true  message,^  but  also  that  he  should 
not  want  efficient  protection.  However  severe  the  an- 
tagonism to  the  truth  should  become,  the  Divine  hand 
retains  its  power,  and  will  not  fail  him  at  the  crises. 

Finally,  Jeremiah  is  warned  in  advance  that  the 
character  of  his  ministry  will  be  destructive.  The 
constructive  process  would  not  be  entirely  over- 
looked, and  yet  we  find  four  strong  words  of  destruc- 
tion and  but  two  of  construction.^     This  indicates 

^  Cheyne  interprets  the  statement  "I  have  put  My  words  in  thy 
mouth  "  thus  :  "I  promise  never  to  leave  thee  in  uncertainty  as  to  thy 
message  ;  I  will  guide  and  overrule  the  natural  promptings  of  thy  heart 
and  intellect  as  that  thou  shalt  convey  the  only  true  conception  of  My 
will  which  the  language  can  express  or  the  people  of  Israel  compre- 
hend" {Jeremiah,  his  Life  and  Times,  p.  5). 

^  "To  pluck  up  and  to  destroy,  to  tear  down  and  to  root  out,  to 
build  and  to  plant"  (i.  10). 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  99 

correctly  the  kind  of  work  this  prophet  was  ever 
called  upon  to  perform.  He  must  always  warn  his 
people  that  the  inevitable  disaster  of  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  was  drawing  nearer  and  nearer. 

There  is  one  feature  of  Ezekiel's  call  which  makes 
it  distinct  from  all  others,  and  which  is  therefore 
especially  worthy  of  note.  The  command  was 
given  :  "  Open  thy  mouth,  and  eat  what  I  give  thee." 
The  result  follows  :  "  And  when  I  looked,  lo,  a  hand 
was  stretched  forth  unto  me ;  and,  lo,  in  it  was  a 
book-roll ;  and  he  spread  it  before  me :  and  it  was 
written  within  and  without.  .  .  .  And  he  said  unto 
me,  Son  of  man,  eat  what  thou  findest :  eat  this  roll, 
and  go  speak  unto  the  house  of  Israel."^ 

The  peculiar  feature  here  is  that  Ezekiel's  inspira- 
tion was  to  come  from  a  book.  There  was  a  written 
standard  to  which  he  was  to  conform.  The  prophet 
was  no  longer  a  free  creator  under  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit,  but  was  guided  by  a  previous  revelation 
which  is  received  as  authoritative.  Jeremiah  indeed 
had  been  sent  about  the  country  to  preach  the  newly 
discovered  book  of  Deuteronomy,^  but  Ezekiel  is 
commanded  to  eat  a  book  containing  the  message  he 
is  to  preach. 

It  is  true  that  we  must  guard  against  taking  too 
literally  the  bold  figures  of  this  prophet.  We  are 
not  to  understand  that  there  was  actually  a  body  of 
written  doctrine  placed  in  his  hands  to  which  he 
swore  conformity.  That  sort  of  shackles  is  a  more 
modern  invention,  coming  to  the  Church,  I  suppose, 
through   the   example    of    the   State.     But   it  does 

1  Ezek.  ii.  8Mii.  i.  ^  jg^.  xi.  i-8.     See  additional  note  (7). 


100  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

mean  that  in  Ezekiel's  day  we  have  reached  the  era 
of  sacred  books  which  have  an  authority  for  the 
people.  The  inaugural  vision  must  reveal  to  the 
prophet  in  what  manner  the  word  of  the  Lord  is  to 
come  to  him,  and  in  Ezekiel's  case  it  came  in  the 
form  of  a  written  message.  We  have  truly  now 
reached  the  age  of  the  literary  prophet,  for  it  is  not 
unlikely  that  many  of  Ezekiel's  messages  were 
originally  issued  in  written  form.  Toy  says  very 
aptly,  "  the  eating  of  a  book  indicates  a  literary 
conception  of  prophecy  different  from  that  of  the 
preceding  prophets,  but  in  accordance  with  the 
literary  growth  of  the  nation."  ^ 

But  little  needs  to  be  added  to  our  study  to  sum- 
marise the  chief  results.  Yet  these  points  may  well 
be  brought  together  here. 

I.  The  prophet  came  to  his  office  from  the  highest 
motives.  He  believed  that  he  was  expressly  called 
to  his  ministry  by  the  voice  of  God,  a  voice  which  he 
dare  not  disregard.  He  was  no  seeker  after  high 
station.  Whether  the  prophet's  mantle  seemed 
better  or  worse  than  his  own,  he  made  the  exchange 
not  to  please  himself,  but  to  please  God.  The  man- 
ner of  acquiring  office  betrays  itself  in  its  administra- 
tion. He  who  uses  a  public  office,  ecclesiastical  or 
political,  as  the  means  to  gratify  ambition  for  station, 
or  as  a  source  of  revenue,  can  never  be  the  true 
servant  of  God  or  man.  The  prophets  held  an  office 
to  which  they  were  led  by  a  will  other  than  their 
own,  a  condition  plainly  written  in  the  history  of 
their  official  lives. 

^  Ezekiel,  in  Polychrome  Bible,  p.  97. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  loi 

2.  The  call  was  due  to  the  Spirit  of  God  acting 
upon  the  heart  of  man,  not  to  an  external  voice, 
audible  only  to  the  outward  ear.  This  idea  underlies 
the  statements  of  the  prophets,  and  is  clearly  the 
only  interpretation  which  can  be  satisfactory.  We 
could  not  hold  God  responsible  for  every  utterance 
even  of  His  holiest  prophets.  There  is  no  way  to 
avoid  that  responsibility  if  we  put  a  literal  construc- 
tion upon  the  introductory  formula  "  Thus  saith 
Jahveh."  The  right  to  use  that  depends  upon  a 
sufficiently  clear  conception  of  God  to  know  what 
He  would  say.  The  one  who  knows  the  life  and 
heart  of  Jesus  Christ  may  well  solve  his  problems  by 
asking  what  Jesus  would  do  in  like  circumstances. 
The  spiritually  minded  prophet,  living  in  constant 
communion  with  God,  and  grasping  the  principles  by 
which  God  came  to  govern  the  world,  could  rightly 
preface  his  utterances  with  his  "  Thus  saith  Jahveh." 
It  is  fair  to  assume  that  the  call  to  the  office  came  in 
the  same  way  as  the  messages  which  the  office 
involved. 

3.  None  the  less  the  call  was  real,  the  inspiration 
was  real,  the  revelation  was  real.  Spiritual  influences 
are  just  as  real  as  physical.  The  voice  in  the  heart  is 
just  as  real  as  the  voice  in  the  ear,  though  its  inter- 
pretation requires  a  more  delicate  understanding.  No 
one  would  assert  that  any  Hebrew  prophet  knew  the 
mind  of  God  perfectly ;  but  partial  knowledge  is  still 
knowledge.  The  prophet  was  obliged  to  translate  the 
inspiration  which  affected  his  soul  into  speech  which 
might  affect  the  souls  of  his  fellows.  That  he  always 
translated  with  absolute  accuracy  cannot  be  main- 


102  THE    HEBREW    PROPHET 

tained ;  that  he  had  a  real  message  to  translate  is 
not  to  be  doubted.  There  may  have  been  prophets 
who  mistakenly  felt  that  they  were  divinely  called. 
Hananiah  may  have  been  as  certain  of  his  call  as 
Jeremiah.  Mistakes  were  surely  possible  on  the  part 
of  those  for  whom  a  later  age  could  find  no  other 
name  than  false  prophets.  But  on  the  part  of  others 
no  mistake  was  made.  The  final  test  of  prophecy 
was  stated  by  Jesus  to  be  the  fruits  of  the  office. 
We  may  apply  that  test  to  every  canonical  prophet, 
and  then  rejoice  in  the  assured  result  that  not  one 
was  mistaken  in  his  belief  that  he  was  called  of  God. 

4.  The  call  was  irresistible.  So  far  as  we  know,  or 
can  conjecture  from  what  knowledge  we  have,  every 
great  Hebrew  prophet  entered  upon  office  reluctantly. 
The  reluctance  was  not  due  to  a  disinclination  to  serve 
God  or  man,  but  to  a  deep  sense  of  personal  unfitness 
for  such  high  office.  For  a  long  time  some  of  them 
withstood  the  invitation,  even  as  St.  Paul  stood 
against  the  goad  which  was  driving  him  Christward  ; 
but  God  is  patient  and  persistent,  and  in  the  end  all 
objections  were  overcome. 

It  may  indeed  be  true  that  God  called  to  prophecy 
many  a  worthy  Hebrew  who  either  never  came  to 
feel  the  call  sufficiently  or  whose  scruples  could  not 
be  removed.  This  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  however, 
and  we  can  never  know  the  facts.  We  do  know, 
though,  that  in  the  case  of  those  prophets  who  made 
prophecy  great,  the  call  was  so  persistent  and  im- 
perative that  their  resistance  was  broken  down. 

5.  The  call  demanded  of  the  prophet  a  surrender 
to  the  will  of  God.     A  Divine  message  would   be 


THE   PROPHET'S   CALL  103 

given  him  not  always  welcome  to  the  people ;  not 
always  welcome  to  the  prophet ;  but  he  must  be  true 
to  his  inspiration,  at  whatever  sacrifice  to  himself. 
The  prophets  were  often  told  that  their  words  would 
fall  on  unwilling  ears ;  that  opposition  would  even 
take  an  active  form  ;  but  that  they  must  boldly 
rebuke  vice,  however  ardent  the  people  might  be  in 
their  efforts  to  silence  the  jarring  remonstrance.  The 
note  of  the  true  prophet  was  his  faithfulness  to  his 
guidance.  The  unfailing  mark  of  those  who  were 
called  false  prophets  as  early  as  the  Christian  era  was 
their  yielding  to  the  demand  of  men  at  the  sacrifice 
of  Divine  truth.  There  were  too  many  prophets  then 
as  now  who  kept  the  ear  groundward.  There  is  a 
species  of  modern  prophet,  happily  somewhat  rare, 
who  seems  to  think  that  the  more  he  antagonises 
men  the  more  certainly  he  is  pleasing  to  God.  Such 
prophets  may  have  existed  in  Israel,  but  we  do  not 
know  them.  He  who  exaggerates  the  demands  of 
God  is  as  unfaithful  as  he  who  minimises  them. 
Happily  men  are  quite  likely  in  all  ages  to  listen 
to  the  voice  of  the  true  and  wise  prophet  even  if 
they  do  not  always  follow  his  counsel. 

6.  The  call  explains  the  secret  of  the  prophet's 
power.  When  God  really  sends  a  man  out  into  the 
world  to  proclaim  His  will,  that  man  must  exercise  a 
great  influence,  for  God  has  put  a  mighty  force  in  his 
hands.  However  unwilling  the  people  may  be  to 
hear  or  do,  still  the  prophet  is  endowed  with  the 
power  of  God.  The  prophets  were  strong,  because 
they  were  true  ;  they  were  brave  for  the  same  reason. 
Loyalty  to  the  deepest   convictions  of  their   souls. 


I04  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

loyalty  to  the  truth  which  God  had  put  in  their  hearts, 
made  them  the  commanding  figures  they  were,  and 
set  them  high  in  the  world's  esteem,  in  spite  of  a  life 
of  suffering,  and  often  a  death  of  martyrdom. 

7.  Finally,  there  was  no  road  to  the  office  of 
prophet  except  that  of  the  Divine  call.  Sanday  says 
very  truly,  "We  never  hear  of  a  prophet  volunteer- 
ing for  his  mission.  It  is  laid  upon  them  as  a 
necessity  from  which  they  struggle  to  escape  in  vain."  ^ 
Probably  nothing  struck  Jeremiah  more  keenly  than 
the  charge  which  Shemaiah  made  that  he  was  a 
prophet  by  his  own  appointment ;  ^  for  it  was  a  base 
injustice  touching  a  vital  matter.  Nothing  shows  the 
high  ideal  of  our  own  ministry  more  forcibly  than  the 
question  in  the  ordinal,  "Do  you  think  in  your  heart, 
that  you  are  truly  called,  according  to  the  will  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  ...  to  the  Order  and  Ministry  of 
the  Priesthood  ?  "  No  one  can  be  a  prophet  without 
the  express  call  of  God  in  this  age  any  more  than  in 
the  days  of  the  Hebrew  dispensation. 

Note. — It  is  interesting  to  see  that  in  the  suggestive  book 
of  the  late  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,  The  Called  of  God,  there  are 
included  among  those  who  received  the  call  of  God  :  Abraham, 
Jacob,  Moses,  Saul,  Elijah,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  John  the  Baptist, 
Nicodemus,  Zacchseus,  the  Rich  Young  Ruler,  and  Thomas. 
A  long  period  of  time  is  covered  in  this  list,  many  classes  of 
men  are  selected,  vastly  different  results  were  attained  :  not  all 
of  those  were  called  to  be  prophets,  but  every  call  was  real. 

^  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  150.  "^  Jer.  xxix.  27. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE    PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS 

TO  accomplish  the  Divine  end  of  prophecy  there 
must  be  not  only  a  man  who  will  speak,  but 
also  people  who  will  listen.  We  have  considered  in 
the  preceding  chapter  the  conditions  which  led  the 
man  to  speak.  In  this  chapter  we  shall  take  up  the 
terms  upon  which  the  people  would  listen.  Doubtless 
there  would  be  many  factors  in  determining  that 
result,  but  only  one  is  of  primary  importance  for  us, 
namely,  the  assurance  that  the  man  was  duly  qualified 
to  speak  in  the  name  of  God. 

If  a  preacher  could  convince  the  people  that  he  was 
really  a  prophet,  that  he  actually  had  a  message  which 
God  wished  conveyed  to  man,  there  would  be  no 
difficulty  in  securing  a  hearing  in  any  age  of  the 
world.-  Is  it  possible  for  the  people  to  be  certain  that 
a  particular  man  speaks  the  mind  of  God  ?  If  it  is, 
by  what  means  is  that  assurance  to  be  given  ?  In 
other  words,  what  are  the  prophet's  credentials  ? 

This  is  no  idle  inquiry,  but  is  often  a  burning  ques- 
tion.    There  were  thousands  of  Jews  in  the  time  of 

*  This  truth  was  understood  by  Zechariah  :  "In  those  days,  ten  men 
from  all  the  foreign  tongues  shall  seize  the  skirt  of  a  man  who  is  a  Jew, 
saying,  We  will  go  with  you  ;  for  we  have  heard  that  God  is  with  you  " 
(viii.  23). 

los 


io6  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

our  Lord  who  would  have  received  Jesus  gladly  and 
would  have  followed  Him  even  to  the  Cross,  if  they 
had  been  fully  convinced  that  He  was  the  Messiah 
promised  of  God.  But  how  could  they  know  ?  Their 
rulers  pronounced  Jesus  a  misleading  impostor;  what 
evidence  was  available  for  them  in  the  face  of  this 
decree  ? 
\y  The  story  of  Micaiah,  already  discussed/  affords  a 

good  concrete  instance,  and  is  a  case  where  the 
problem  was  serious.  The  prophets  of  Ahab  cried 
with  absolute  unanimity,  "  Go  up  and  prosper."  The 
solitary  voice  of  Micaiah  said,  "  Go  up  to  your  ruin." 
Ahab  had  the  best  of  reasons  for  distrusting  the 
counsel  of  his  obsequious  seers ;  but  if  he  had  been 
persuaded  that  Micaiah  knew  the  truth,  is  it  likely 
that  he  would  have  set  out  upon  an  expedition  certain 
to  result  in  disaster?  And  even  if  Ahab  had  been 
ready  to  take  such  a  risk,  would  the  godly  Jehosha- 
phat  have  been  willing  to  fly  directly  in  the  face  of 
Providence,  if  he  had  been  assured  that  Micaiah  spoke 
the  truth  ?  Then  there  was  a  larger  body  interested 
in  that  expedition  than  the  two  kings.  Thousands 
in  the  armies  knew  that  they  were  going  to  certain 
triumph  or  to  danger  and  death,  as  the  one  prophet 
or  the  other  rightly  foresaw  the  issue  of  the  campaign. 
Could  they  tell  positively  which  was  right?  If  they 
had  known  that  the  son  of  Imlah  spoke  the  truth,  and 
the  others  a  subservient  lie,  would  there  not  have 
been  such  wholesale  desertions  as  to  render  the 
campaign  impossible  for  lack  of  troops  ? 

Another  example  of  the  grave  nature  of  the  problem 

^   I  Kings  xxii. ;  see  also  above,  p.  52  ff. 


THE   PROPHET'S    CREDENTIALS     107 

is  afforded  by  the  conflict  between  Jeremiah  and 
Hananiah.  The  latter  is  called  the  prophet^  just  as 
Jeremiah  is,  but  his  message  is  absolutely  contradic- 
tory to  Jeremiah's.  He  throws  down  the  glove  in 
the  most  public  manner.  In  the  temple,  before  the 
priests  and  all  the  people,  he  addresses  Jeremiah : 
"  Thus  saith  Jahveh  Sabaoth  the  God  of  Israel :  I 
will  break  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon.^  Within 
two  years  I  will  bring  back  to  this  place  all  the 
vessels  of  the  house  of  Jahveh  which  Nebuchadrezzar 
the  king  of  Babylon  has  taken  from  this  place  and 
carried  to  Babylon.  And  Jeconiah,  the  son  of  Jehoia- 
kim,  the  king  of  Judah,  and  all  the  captivity  of  Judah 
who  went  to  Babylon,  will  I  bring  back  to  this  place, 
saith  Jahveh  :  for  I  will  break  the  yoke  of  the  king  of 
Babylon."3 

The  occasion  of  Hananiah's  positive  declaration  is 
found  in  chapter  xxvii.  Jeremiah  had  put  a  yoke  on 
his  neck,  and  was  wearing  it  as  a  symbol  of  sub- 
mission ;  he  had  declared  that  safety  could  be  found 
only  in  yielding  to  a  superior  force ;  that  not  only 
would  the  vessels  already  carried  off  not  be  brought 
back,  but  that  there  was  serious  danger  that  the  few 
remaining  in  the  temple  might  share  the  fate  of  their 
fellows ;    that  the  prophets  who  declared   that  the 

^  Jer.  xxviii.  i.  The  difficulty  was  solved  in  Greek  versions  and 
Targums  by  altering  the  text  and  inserting  "  false  "  before  "  prophet." 

^  Jer.  xxviii.  2,  A.V.,  and  R.V.  "I  have  broken";  but  the  verb 
is  the  so-called  prophetic  perfect,  which  should  be  translated  by  a 
future  tense. 

^  Jer.  xxviii.  2-4.  The  Greek  versions  have  a  much  simpler  text, 
omitting  much  that  is  redundant,  and  that  weakens  the  force  of 
Hananiah's  terse  statement. 


io8  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

exile  would  soon  be  over  spoke  lies  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord.  Further,  Jeremiah  had  already  declared 
that  Jeconiah  (Jehoiachin)  would  die  in  exile.^ 

In  the  face  of  this  utterance  Hananiah  stepped 
forward  with  his  positive  declaration,  and  followed  it 
up  by  breaking  the  yoke  which  Jeremiah  was  wear- 
ing, and  using  his  very  violence  as  a  symbol,  says  : 
"  Thus  saith  Jahveh  :  even  thus  within  two  years  will 
I  break  the  yoke  of  Nebuchadrezzar  the  king  of 
Babylon,  from  the  necks  of  all  the  nations." ' 

Here  was  a  direct  issue,  one  prophet  flatly  contra- 
dicting another.  How  were  the  people  to  know 
which  was  right  ?  Were  there  any  means  by  which 
they  might  determine  positively  which  counsel  to 
follow?  It  was  manifestly  an  important  question; 
for  one  way  led  to  the  downfall  of  the  nation,  the 
other  to  its  preservation. 

We  may  at  once  dispose  of  the  notion  that  the 
question  could  be  settled  by  official  authority ;  for 
both  of  these  men,  as  the  Hebrew  scriptures  testify, 
were  accredited  as  prophets  ;  one  was  as  much  en- 
titled to  speak  in  the  name  of  Jahveh  as  the  other,  so 
far  as  official  sanction  was  concerned.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  official  garb  was  not  a  sufficient 
guarantee  that  he  who  wore  it  was  loyal  to  the  truth 
of  God,  a  fact  unhappily  evident  in  all  ages. 

We  may  also  see  that  Jeremiah,  a  great  and  loyal 
prophet  of  God,  who  suffered  more  for   the  cause 

*  Jer.  xxii.  26. 

^  Jer.  xxviii.  1 1.  The  ground  of  Hananiah's  confidence  is  supposed 
to  be  his  knowledge  that  help  had  been  promised  by  Egypt.  It  is 
certain  that  Zedekiah  had  joined  an  alliance  against  Babylon. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     109 

God  had  put  in  his  heart  than  any  other  Hebrew 
prophet,  had  no  signal  to  give  the  people  as  absolute 
proof  that  his  words  were  true  and  his  opponent's 
false.  At  first  the  poor  prophet  can  only  offer  the 
plea,  and  we  are  constrained  to  admit  that  it  is  a 
feeble  plea,  that  the  prophet  who  predicted  disaster 
was  more  likely  to  be  right  than  the  prophet  who 
predicted  peace.  And  even  after  he  had  taken  time 
for  reflection,  he  could  only  replace  on  his  neck  the 
broken  bars  of  wood  with  bars  of  iron,  and  pro- 
nounce the  doom  of  death  upon  Hananiah.  I  said 
"  the  poor  prophet "  :  I  said  it  advisedly.  For  think 
of  the  pain  and  humiliation  of  one  conscious  of  the 
truth,  on  seeing  his  truth  set  at  naught  by  a  lie. 
And  think  of  the  anguish  of  a  soul  ready  to  die  for 
the  welfare  of  his  people  as  he  sees  them  ready  to 
follow  a  false  leader  who  will  speedily  conduct  them 
to  a  terrible  doom. 

I  think  no  prophet  could  be  unmindful  of  the 
force  of  the  question  we  are  considering.  He  must, 
of  course,  be  assured  himself  that  he  has  authority 
to  speak  in  God's  name,  and  that  as  a  consequence 
what  he  says  is  true.  But  however  important  the 
truth  is  in  itself,  its  end  is  to  be  received  and  followed 
by  the  people.  The  truth  that  we  should  not  hate 
our  enemies,  but  love  them,  is  beautiful  and  im- 
portant written  on  the  face  of  the  heavens,  but 
beyond  question  more  beautiful  and  more  important 
written  in  the  lives  of  men.  Jesus  got  a  hearing 
with  the  people  because  He  spoke  as  one  with 
authority.  The  properly  accredited  prophet  will  be 
listened  to  as  no  other.     It  is  vital  to  the  prophet's 


no  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

full  accomplishment  of  his  mission,  that  his  position 
as  a  prophet  be  recognised. 

It  might  seem  as  if  the  call  would  settle  that 
problem  for  the  people  as  well  as  the  prophet.  When 
Amaziah  broke  in  upon  Amos  and  tried  to  send  him 
from  Bethel,  was  not  the  prophet's  only  answer  the 
story  of  his  call  ?  And  did  he  not  then  proceed  with 
his  mission,  without  let  or  hindrance  from  priest  or 
king  ?  Did  not  the  prophets  tell  the  people  how 
they  were  called  of  God  as  a  reason  why  their 
oracles  should  be  heard  and  their  counsel  followed  ? 

The  call  was  the  best  possible  evidence  for  the 
prophet,  but  was  of  little  service  to  the  people.  For 
that  is  the  very  thing  to  be  attested.  The  very  words 
"  thus  saith  the  Lord "  are  a  claim  to  have  been 
called  of  God,  but  the  call  is  not  evidence  of  the 
claim.  Moreover,  the  prophets  do  not  use  the  call 
so  much  in  evidence  of  their  true  inspiration  as  in 
explanation  of  their  exercise  of  office.  Amos  could 
scarcely  hope  to  satisfy  Amaziah  by  the  statement 
that  Jahveh  constrained  him  to  do  what  he  was 
doing ;  but  it  did  serve  as  an  adequate  reason  for  his 
refusal  to  obey  the  mandate  of  the  king. 

I  think  every  prophet  must  have  felt  this  difficulty, 
even  though  not  all  have  expressed  it.  But  we  find 
the  matter  clearly  set  forth  in  the  oldest  version  of 
the  call  of  Moses.  Moses  was  perfectly  satisfied  that 
God  summoned  him  to  the  great  task  of  Israel's 
rescue.  Whatever  doubts  he  may  have  had  on  that 
score  had  been  removed.  But  before  he  could  bring 
Israel  out  of  Egypt  he  must  persuade  them  that  the 
plan  for  their  escape  was  no  scheme  of  his  own,  but 


THE  PROPHET'S  CREDENTIALS  in 

the  purpose  of  the  God  of  their  fathers.  So  we  read, 
"And  Moses  answered  and  said  :  But  behold,  they 
will  not  believe  me,  nor  listen  to  my  plea  ;  but  they 
will  say,  Jahveh  hath  not  appeared  to  thee."  ^  Moses 
sees  that  there  is  no  use  going  down  to  Egypt  until 
he  can  answer  that  objection.  The  solution  given  to 
Moses  introduces  us  to  the  commonest  of  all  the 
credentials  of  the  prophet.  "And  Jahveh  said  unto 
him,  What  is  that  in  thy  hand  ?  And  he  answered, 
A  rod.  And  He  said,  Cast  it  to  the  ground.  When  he 
cast  it  to  the  ground,  it  became  a  serpent,  and  Moses 
ran  away  from  it.  And  Jahveh  said  unto  Moses, 
Put  forth  thy  hand,  and  take  it  by  the  tail.  And  he 
put  forth  his  hand,  and  seized  it,  and  it  became  a 
rod  in  his  hand."^ 

By  his  ability  to  turn  the  rod  into  a  serpent,  and 
such  a  serpent  as  would  frighten  a  man  who  had 
lived  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  and  the  serpent 
back  into  a  rod,  Moses  would  establish  his  claim  to 
speak  in  Jahveh's  name.  It  may  seem  as  if  there  is 
but  slight  connexion  between  turning  a  rod  into  a 
serpent,  and  knowledge  of  the  will  of  God  ;  but  it 
was  simple  enough  from  the  Hebrew  point  of  view. 
The  changing  of  the  rod  into  the  serpent  was  super- 
natural, that  is,  a  manifestation  of  an  extraordinary 
force  due  directly  to  God.  The  man  who  could 
exercise  the  Divine  power  in  one  manifestation 
could  do  it  also  in  others.  If  God  enabled  a  man  to 
work  signs,  there  was  nothing  He  would  withhold 
from  him.  The  sign,  therefore,  or  as  it  is  often  less 
accurately  called,  the  miracle,  was  regarded  as  the 

^  Exod.  iv.  I.  "^  Exod.  iv.  2-4. 


112  THE    HEBREW    PROPHET 

most  convincing  evidence  of  the  power  of  God  in 
man,  and  that  verdict  held  true  for  all  ages  of  Hebrew 
history. 

When  Moses  went  to  the  Egyptian  court  to  de- 
mand the  release  of  the  Hebrew  people,  he  had  no 
hope  of  persuading  Pharaoh  to  comply  except  by 
proving  to  him  that  the  demand  would  be  backed  up 
by  such  a  display  of  Divine  power  as  no  king  would 
dare  withstand.  ^  The  story  of  the  plagues  is  the 
story  of  a  series  of  signs  by  which  Moses  sought  to 
demonstrate  to  Pharaoh  his  own  endowment  with  the 
power  of  God. 

"  All  Israel,  from  Dan  to  Beersheba,"  so  we  read  in 
I  Samuel  iii.  20,  *'  knew  that  Samuel  was  established 
as  a  prophet  of  Jahveh."  How  did  they  know  it? 
We  are  told  that  "Jahveh  was  with  Samuel,  and  let 
none  of  his  words  fall  to  the  ground,"  ^  That  might 
mean  that  Jahveh  fulfilled  all  of  Samuel's  sayings, 
but  it  admits  of  a  larger  interpretation,  that  what- 
ever Samuel  said  or  did  was  upheld  by  Jahveh.  That 
statement  suggests  that  there  was  undoubtedly  a 
popular  misconception  of  the  relations  between  God 
and  His  prophet.  The  truth  is,  of  course,  that  God 
will  sustain  His  prophet  just  as  long  as  he  is  true  to 
his  Divine  guidance,  and  not  a  moment  longer.  If 
the  salt  loses  its  savour  it  is  fit  for  no  place  but  the 
dunghill.  Christ  promised  that  the  gates  of  hell 
should  not  prevail  against  His  Church.  The  pledge 
will  hold  so  long  as  the  Church  is  Christ's,  z>.  true  to 

^  Moses's  rod  was  made  the  symbol  of  his  wonder-working  power 
before  Pharaoh  as  well  as  before  the  Israelites  (see  e.g.  Exod.  iv,  17). 
^  I  Sam.  iii.  19. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     113 

His  purpose ;  but  if  the  Church  shall  ever  cease  to 
be  Christ's,  His  sheltering  arm  will  be  withdrawn  in 
a  moment. 

But  the  mass  of  the  Hebrews  did  not  have  so  re- 
fined a  conception.  Their  idea  was  that  when  God 
set  a  man  up  as  a  prophet,  the  prophet  might  do  or 
say  what  he  pleased,  and  God  was  bound  to  sustain 
him.  In  other  words,  the  powers  placed  in  the 
hands  of  a  prophet  were  unconditional.  Because 
Jahveh  was  with  Samuel,  none  of  his  words  were 
allowed  to  fall  to  the  ground. 

Samuel  did  not  hesitate  to  make  use  of  his  mira- 
culous power  to  convince  the  people  that  his  words 
were  true.  This  appears  in  one  of  the  two  stories  of 
the  establishment  of  the  kingdom,^  in  which  Samuel 
is  represented  as  wholly  adverse  to  the  new  order. 
He  must  convince  the  people  of  their  error,  and  he 
does  it  by  a  sign.  At  his  call  Jahveh  sent  a  thunder- 
storm at  the  time  of  the  wheat  harvest.  Nothing 
could  be  less  miraculous  in  America  than  a  thunder- 
storm at  harvest-time,  but  in  Palestine  it  was  almost 
as  unusual  as  a  snowstorm  in  July,-  and  naturally 
produced  a  great  effect  upon  the  people,  persuading 
them  that  the  Lord  did  indeed  uphold  the  words 
of  His  prophet,  and  that  their  wickedness  was  very 
great. 

'    Elijah  stakes  upon  the  issue  of  a  sign  the  right  of 
Jahveh's  claim  to  be  the  God  of  Israel.     At  Carmel 

*  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  these  accounts,  see  the  author's  Old 
Testament  from  the  Modern  Point  of  Fiew,  p.  i68  ff. 

^  "  As  snow  in  summer,  and  as  rain  in  harvest,  so  honour  is  not 
seemly  for  a  fool"  (Prov.  xxvi.  l). 
I 


114  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

he  summoned  the  whole  mass  of  Baal's  prophets  to 
offer  a  sacrifice  to  their  God  while  he  offered  one 
to  Jahveh.  Both  parties  were  to  lay  the  dressed 
victim  on  the  wood,  but  not  to  put  fire  underneath. 
Then  the  challenge  is  boldly  given  :  "  And  do  ye  call 
upon  the  name  of  your  god,  and  I  will  call  on  the 
name  of  Jahveh ;  and  it  shall  be  that  the  god  who 
answers  by  fire,  he  is  God  indeed."  ^  In  spite  of  the 
twelve  barrels  of  water  which  were  poured  over 
Elijah's  pyre,  his  prayer  was  heard,  and  the  fire 
descended  and  consumed  the  sacrifice  and  the  wood, 
and  even  the  stones  of  which  the  altar  was  made,  as 
well  as  the  water  in  the  trench.  We  need  not 
trouble  ourselves  in  this  connexion  with  the  question 
of  the  historicity  of  this  story.  We  are  chiefly  con- 
cerned with  Hebrew  ideas,  and  whether  this  story 
is  based  on  fact  or  fiction,  it  is  clear  that  the  Hebrews 
believed  such  things  to  be  possible.  Elijah  was 
supposed  to  substantiate  his  message  that  Jahveh 
alone  was  the  God  of  Israel  by  a  stupendous  sign,  the 
force  of  which  no  one  could  resist. 

It  is  a  striking  fact  that  the  moment  we  reach  the 
canonical  prophets,  and  these  were  the  great  prophets, 
the  sign  occupies  an  inconspicuous  place.  Most  of 
them,  so  far  as  we  know,  never  wrought  signs  at  all. 
Amos  had  a  fine  chance  for  the  display  of  that  kind 
of  evidence  when  Amaziah  attempted  to  silence  him, 
but  he  made  no  appeal  to  other  than  spiritual  power. 
Jeremiah  had  a  splendid  opportunity  to  crush  his 
false  opponent  by  a  display  of  power  which  could 
only  come  direct  from   Heaven.     He  does,  indeed, 

^  I  Kings  xviii.  24. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     115 

declare  that  Hananiah  would  die  for  his  sins  within 
the  year,  but  that  event  was  too  long  delayed  to  be 
effective  as  a  sign. 

Yet  the  sign  does  play  a  part  in  the  prophetic 
career  of  the  greatest  of  the  great  prophets,  Isaiah 
wished  to  turn  Ahaz  from  his  fatal  policy  of  an 
alliance  with  Assyria,  which  meant  the  degradation 
of  Judah  to  a  vassal  state.  The  prophet  declared 
that  such  succour  was  unnecessary  ;  for  the  Syro- 
Ephraimitish  coalition,  which  was  the  cause  of  Ahaz's 
terror,  had  no  endurance,  and  would  soon  burn  out 
what  vitality  it  had.  He  offered  proof  that  what  he 
said  was  the  word  of  God  :  "  Ask  thee  a  sign  from 
Jahveh  thy  God,  deep  as  sheol  or  high  as  heaven."  ^ 
No  matter  how  hard  the  sign  might  be  to  work, 
whether  it  was  centred  in  the  depths  of  earth  or  the 
heights  of  heaven,  the  prophet  declared  his  readiness 
to  stake  his  counsel  upon  its  successful  accomplish- 
ment. When  Ahaz,  with  mock  piety  in  his  voice, 
refused  the  sign  that  was  offered,  that  is,  when  it  was 
clear  that  Ahaz  refused  to  listen  to  God,  being  bent 
upon  his  own  mad  policy,  then  Isaiah  gave  him  a 
sign,  not,  though,  of  the  safety  of  Judah  ;  for  Ahaz's 
disobedience  changed  the  issue  of  the  future,  and  the 
child  Immanuel  was  in  one  respect  a  sign  of  the  dis- 
aster which  the  king's  error  would  bring  upon  Judah. 

When  Hezekiah  was  seized  with  so  severe  an  ill- 
ness that  the  prophet  declared  that  he  would  die,^  the 

^  Isa.  vii.  II. 

^  This  incident  need  occasion  no  question  of  prophetic  infallibility. 
The  prophets  were  not  infallible  ;  and  in  any  case  there  is  no  warrant 
for  supposing  that  Isaiah  meant  any  more  than  to  pronounce  an  opinion 
based  upon  Hezekiah's  symptoms.     From  the  fact  that  he  treated  the 


\/ 


lie  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

king  prayed  earnestly  against  death,  and  his  prayer 
was  heard.  Isaiah  was  then  sent  to  him  with  the 
message  that  he  would  yet  live  fifteen  years.  The 
prophet  was  not  delivering  an  opinion  of  his  own,  but 
pronouncing  the  word  of  God.  To  prove  this  word 
he  offers  a  sign  that  the  shadow  on  the  king's  step- 
clock  should  go  forward  or  backward  ten  degrees.^ 
The  king  said  that  it  would  go  forward  itself;  that 
would  be  no  sign  ;  let  it  go  backward  ten  degrees. 
And  backward  it  is  said  to  have  gone  in  answer  to 
Isaiah's  prayer  to  Jahveh.^ 

Hezekiah  demanded  a  sign  which  at  the  same  time 
would  be  a  miracle ;  otherwise  he  could  not  see  that 
it  would  prove  anything.  But  the  sign  was  by  no 
means  always  miraculous.  In  the  late  prophets  the 
term  is  generally  applied  to  natural  events.  Thus 
when  Isaiah  goes  naked  and  barefoot,  his  conduct  is 
a  sign  to  Judah.^    Though  not  miraculous,  his  slave's 

king  for  his  ailment,  Isaiah  may  have  been  a  sort  of  practitioner  in  the 
art  of  healing.  It  would  then  not  be  the  first  case  in  which  a  patient 
has  disproved  the  physician's  prediction  of  death. 

^  I  have  followed  the  fuller  version  in  2  Kings  xx.  In  Isa.  xxxviii.  the 
story  is  briefer,  and  the  king  is  not  offered  a  choice.  The  prophet 
declares  that  the  shadow  on  the  dial  will  go  back  ten  degrees,  and  it 
does  so  ;  but  there  is  no  mention  of  the  prophet's  prayer.  This  version 
has  the  appearance  of  greater  originality  than  that  in  Kings. 

"  This  miracle  presents  a  serious  difficulty,  which  has  been  strangely 
dealt  with  by  those  bound  to  maintain  the  literal  integrity  of  the  Bible. 
The  sign  would  naturally  involve  a  backward  course  of  the  earth  on  its 
axis,  and  would  be  a  degree  more  unnatural  than  Joshua's  stopping  of 
the  sun.  To  regard  the  transaction  as  a  juggler's  trick,  as  many  con- 
servative commentators  do,  may  be  in  harmony  with  Oriental  habits, 
but  it  scarcely  throws  light  on  the  ways  of  God.  It  is  very  likely  that 
this  story  is  based  upon  a  fact  which  has  been  so  obscured  by  successive 
narrators  that  the  original  statement  is  no  longer  recoverable. 

•*  Isa.  XX. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     117 

dress  was  a  token  or  symbol  of  coming  events.  Jere- 
miah and  Ezekiel  use  the  natural  sign  frequently, 
■  and  the  miracle  not  at  all.  There  is  no  record  of  a 
miracle  worked  by  either  of  these  great  men.  In  fact, 
as  we  shall  see  shortly,  the  miraculous  sign  had 
already  fallen  into  disrepute  among  the  great  men. 
But  evidence  is  not  lacking  that  the  mass  of  the 
people  never  ceased  to  look  for  the  sign  as  evidence 
of  a  man's  authority  to  wear  the  prophet's  mantle. 
In  the  pathetic  description  of  the  fallen  condition  of 
Israel  in  Maccabean  days  we  find  this  : — 

"  Our  signs  we  see  not,  nor  is  there  prophet ; 
With  us  is  not  one  that  knows  how  long."^ 

The   lack  of  signs  and  the  lack  of  a  prophet  are 
virtually  one  and  the  same. 

It  is  so  well  known  as  to  need  only  mention  that 
the  Jews  constantly  demanded  a  sign  of  Jesus  as  proof 
that  He  spoke  with  Divine  authority.  Even  when 
He  was  hanging  on  the  Cross,  the  cry  was  raised  that 
His  persecutors  were  ready  to  accept  Him  as  the 
Messiah  if  He  would  give  them  a  convincing  sign  by 
descending  from  the  Cross.  In  spite  of  this  feeling 
that  Jesus  had  wrought  no  adequate  sign,  it  is  beyond 
question  that  many  were  persuaded  by  virtue  of 
the  miracles  He  had  performed.  Nicodemus  states 
the  matter  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  upper 
classes,  for  he  was  well  educated  both  in  head  and 
heart :  "  No  man  can  do  these  signs  that  Thou  doest, 
except  God  be  with  him."^  The  masses  looked  at 
the  matter  in  the  same  way :   "  He   hath  done  all 

1  Ps.  Ixxiv.  9.     See  p.  39.  '  John  iii,  2. 


ii8  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

things  well  :  He  maketh  even  the  deaf  to  hear,  and 
the  dumb  to  speak."  ^ 

Yet  the  ability  to  do  a  sign,  however  marvellous  it 
might  be,  did  not  always  serve  as  decisive  proof,  j 
Many  wonders  were  done  in  Egypt,  even  bearing 
hard  upon  the  people,  before  Pharaoh  released  the 
Israelites  from  bondage.  Ahaz  in  effect  told  Isaiah 
that  he  would  not  accept  his  counsel  even  if  he  did 
support  it  by  a  sign  high  as  heaven  or  deep  as  sheol. 
The  Sanhedrim  made  an  exhaustive  investigation  of 
Jesus'  cure  of  a  case  of  congenital  blindness,  and 
rendered  it  as  their  final  opinion  that,  while  they 
could  not  deny  the  cure,  the  healer  was  a  sinner.^  So 
His  casting  out  demons  was  attributed  to  alliance  with 
Beelzebub  the  chief  of  demons. 

The  sign  was  unsatisfactory  for  another  reason  : 
its  performance  was  not  restricted  to  the  men  of  God. 
Moses  ran  against  this  difficulty  at  the  very  start. 
He  and  Aaron  went  before  Pharaoh,  and  as  evidence 
of  their  Divine  mission  turned  the  divining  rod  into  a 
serpent.  But  the  king  calls  in  his  magicians,  and 
every  one  of  them  turns  his  rod  into  a  serpent  by  the 
secret  art.^  It  is  scarcely  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
Moses  in  this  particular  case  exercised  a  power 
different  from  that  of  the  Egyptian  magicians.  If 
that  conclusion  is  sound,  then  we  are  almost  startled 
by  the  suggestion  that  the  signs  are  due  to  a  magic 
art,  still  much  in  vogue  in  the  East  as  a  part  of  the 
religious  vocation,*  and  in  the  West  as  an  easy  means 

^  Mark  vii.  37.  "^  John  ix.  ^  Exod.  vii.  8  ff. 

*  The  most  wonderful  of  the  feats  performed  in  India  are  the  work 
of  men  belonging  to  religious  orders. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     119 

of  securing  a  competent  livelihood,^  The  understand- 
ing of  the  true  nature  of  most  of  the  signs  is  not 
improbably  the  explanation  of  the  disrepute  into 
which  they  fell. 

The  people  are,  however,  not  left  to  inference,  but 
are  expressly  warned  against  signs  and  wonders  as 
proof  of  the  authority  of  one  who  essays  to  speak  in 
the  name  of  their  God  :  "  If  a  prophet  or  a  dreamer  '^ 
appear  in  thy  midst,  and  give  thee  a  sign  or  wonder, 
and  the  sign  or  wonder  came  to  pass,  which  he  spake 
when  he  said,  Let  us  go  after  other  gods,  ...  ye  shall 
not  listen  to  the  words  of  that  prophet  or  that 
dreamer,  but  Jahveh  is  testing  you  to  find  out 
whether  you  are  loving  Jahveh."-  The  writer  does 
not  deny  the  signality  of  the  wonders  ;  but  he  asserts 
that  they  prove  something  very  different  from  what 
their  performers  suppose.  The  signs  are  to  prove  the 
strength  of  Israel's  faith,  not  the  authority  of  the 
prophet's  utterance.  The  sign  can  do  its  Divine 
work,  only  if  the  people  disregard  its  apparent 
leading. 

The  teaching  and  practice  of  Jesus  are  the  decisive 
blows  against  the  apologetic  value  of  signs.  The 
temptations  which  He  endured  were  in  substance 
merely  the  settlement  of  the  problem  in  His  own 
ministry  whether  He  was  to  depend  upon  signs  or 
not.  The  answer  was  clear,  and  His  course  con- 
sistent with  the  settlement  reached  at  the  beginning. 
In  every  case  He  refused  to  give  a  sign  as  proof  of 
His  authority ;  He  lamented  the  popular  craving  for 

,    '  e.g.  the  healing  by  Christian  scientists. 
• ?  Deut.  xiii.  2-4. 


I20  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

miracles  ;i  and  gave  this  express  warning  to  His 
disciples  :  "  There  shall  arise  false  Christs  and  false 
prophets,  and  shall  show  great  signs  and  wonders  ; 
so  as  to  lead  astray  if  possible,  even  the  elect."-  The 
true  voice  of  God  could  not  be  hazarded  on  the  issue 
of  a  sign.  So  it  is  testified  of  the  forerunner  of  the 
Christ,  "John  indeed  did  no  sign."^ 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  singular  that  the  miracle 
has  played  such  an  important  role  in  the  Christian 
apologetics  of  the  past,  and  to  a  certain  extent  of 
the  present.  Someone  has  said  that  the  remarkable 
growth  of  Christian  science  is  the  measure  of  the 
credulity  of  the  people.  It  may  be  more  truly  said 
that  it  is  a  measure  of  the  persistence  of  the  belief  in 
the  apologetic  value  of  signs.  The  healer  removes  the 
ache,  and  the  cure  is  a  sign  of  the  Divine  authority  of 
the  whole  system.  It  would  be  quite  as  reasonable 
to  set  up  Mr.  Kellar's  wonderful  exploits  as  evidence 
that  the  moon  is  made  of  green  cheese.  The  logical 
difficulty  with  the  sign  is  the  lack  of  connexion 
between  the  proof  and  the  thing  to  be  proved.  One 
may  be  able  to  relieve  a  toothache  by  mental  pro- 
cesses ;  but  he  does  not  thereby  establish  the  medley 
of  philosophy  and  religion  as  set  forth  by  Mrs.  Eddy. 
One  may  turn  his  rod  into  a  serpent,  and  that  does 
prove  him  possessed  of  a  mysterious  power,  but  it 
does  not  demonstrate  that  God  wishes  Pharaoh  to 
release  his  most  valuable  slaves.     The  miracles  of 

^  As  a  good  example  we  may  cite  John  iv.  48  ;  Jesus  says  to  the 
nobleman  who  sought  succour  for  his  son,  "Except  ye  see  signs  and 
wonders,  ye  will  in  no  wise  believe." 

'  Matt.  xxiv.  24  ;  cf.  Mark  xiii.  22.  ^  John  x.  41. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     121 

Jesus  differ  from  most  of  the  signs,  in  that  they  were 
inextricably  bound  up  with  His  method  of  work,  and 
were  never  meaningless  wonders  performed  to  impress 
the  people.  Their  evidential  value  is  to  be  found, 
not  in  the  similarity  to  other  signs,  but  in  their 
difference  from  them.^ 

The  sign,  which  was  the  most  decisive  proof  of  the 
Divine  authority  of  the  prophet  in  the  early  days, 
came  to  be  regarded  as  wholly  unreliable  evidence 
by  thoughtful  men.  What  took  its  place  in  apolo- 
getics? If  the  sign  was  no  proof,  what  was  valid 
evidence  for  or  against  the  claim  of  a  seer  ? 

A  kind  of  evidence  which  developed  late  in  Israel, 
and  which  has  persisted  down  to  the  present  time,  is 
ythe  fulfilment  of  predictive  prophecy.  Prediction  is 
but  a  minor  element  in  the  highest  order  of  prophecy. 
In  time  past  the  place  of  prediction  was  so  unduly 
magnified 2  that  it  is  not  surprising  that  recent  writers 
have  almost  ignored  its  existence.  But  the  truth  is 
in  neither  extreme.  The  power  to  forecast  the  future 
was  one  of  the  leading  qualifications  of  the  early 
fortune-telling  seers  ;3  and  though  prediction  occupied 
a  less  prominent  place  in  the  later  prophecy,  we  may 

^  The  miracles  of  Elisha  are  most  like  those  of  the  great  Master. 
They  were  wrought  for  a  beneficent  end,  not  to  astonish  the  people. 
For  example,  we  may  take  the  rescue  of  the  axe,  if  indeed  that  is  a 
miracle.  The  prophet  who  lost  it  had  no  money  ;  the  axe  was  borrowed, 
and  was  very  valuable.  The  poor  prophet  was  in  a  serious  difficulty, 
from  which  the  chief  extricates  him. 

'^  Justin  Martyr's  definition  of  a  prophet  makes  him  essentially  a 
forecaster:  "There  were  among  the  Jews  certain  men  who  were 
prophets  of  God,  through  whom  the  prophetic  spirit  published  before- 
hand things  that  were  to  come  to  pass  ere  ever  they  happened  "  (First 
Apologia,  c.  xxxi. ).  *  See  chap.  i.  p.  8  ft". 


122  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

yet  see  its  supreme  importance  by  recalling  the  fact 
that  all  Messianic  prophecy  is  of  necessity  predictive. 

Messianic  prophecy  is  looked  at  very  differently 
to-day  from  what  it  was  even  a  few  years  ago.  The 
specific  predictions  of  Christ,  which  our  fathers  be- 
lieved they  had  found  in  vast  quantity  in  the  Old 
Testament,  have  not  been  able  to  bear  the  test  of  the 
microscopic  examination  of  modern  scientific  methods. 
But  the  most  radical  scholar  affirms  with  great  positive- 
ness  the  supreme  importance  of  Messianic  prophecy. 
But  our  concern  now  is  not  Messianic  prophecy,  but 
the  fulfilment  of  predictive  prophecy  as  a  source  of 
evidence.  We  find  that  this  occupies  a  considerable 
place  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  a  still  larger  place 
in  the  New  Testament. 

In  its  earliest  form  the  appeal  to  fulfilment  and 
the  sign  border  on  each  other  very  closely.  Thus  in 
Samuel's  calling  of  the  thunderstorm,  already  re- 
ferred to,i  there  may  be  almost  as  much  proof  in  the 
fulfilment  of  the  prophet's  prediction  that  a  thunder- 
storm would  come  as  in  the  thunderstorm  itself 

Micaiah  stakes  his  mission  as  a  true  prophet  of 
Jahveh  upon  the  fulfilment  of  his  prediction  of 
disaster ;  the  prophet's  reply  to  the  king's  order  to 
put  him  in  prison  until  he  returned  in  peace  was, 
"If  thou  ever  return  at  all  in  safety,  Jahveh  has  sent 
no  message  by  me."^ 

^"^  Jeremiah  alluded  to  this  test  of  prophecy  when  he 
was  confronted  by  Hananiah :  "  the  prophet  who 
predicts  peace :  when  the  word  of  the  prophet  is  ful- 
filled, then  will  he  know  the  prophet  whom  Jahveh 

^  See  above,  p.  113.  ^  i  Kings  xxii.  28. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     123 

has  truly  sent.''^  The  proof  of  the  Divine  mission 
is  to  be  found  in  fulfilment  of  the  prophet's  words. 
The  prophets  of  old  foretold  war,  evil,  and  pestilence. 
The  presence  of  these  evils  proves  the  inspiration  of 
those  who  predicted  them.  If  the  peace  which 
Hananiah  so  confidently  predicts  shall  actually  come, 
it  will  be  adequate  proof  that  Jahveh  truly  speaks  by 
him.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Zedekiah's 
growing  feeling  in  favour  of  Jeremiah's  counsel,  as  the 
final  catastrophe  grew  near,  was  due  to  his  observation 
that  the  course  of  events  was  following  with  painful 
closeness  the  forecasts  of  the  persecuted  prophet. 

Jeremiah  had  long  before  preached  to  the  people 
the  contents  of  a  law  book  which  gave  a  rule  to 
determine  the  true  prophet  from  the  false.  The 
problem  is  put  in  the  question  :  *'  If  thou  say  in  thy 
heart,  How  shall  we  know  the  word  which  Jahveh  has 
not  spoken  ? "  Then  the  answer  is  given  :  "  What- 
ever the  prophet  speaks  in  the  name  of  Jahveh,  and 
it  occurs  not,  nor  comes  true,  that  is  the  word  which  ^ 
Jahveh  has  not  spoken."  ^  The  final  test  of  prophecy 
is  its  fulfilment.  Briggs  places  a  wider  interpretation 
on  this  passage  than  it  will  bear.^  What  he  says  about 
the  test  of  prophecy  is  true,  but  it  does  not  follow  from 
this  passage.     The  one  test  here  given  is  fulfilment. 

Ezekiel  found  quite  early  in  his  career  as  a  prophet 
a  widespread  scepticism  based  upon  the  non-fulfil- 
ment of  prophecy.  It  had  come  to  be  a  proverb  in 
the  land  of  Israel  that  "  the  days  grow  long,  and 
every  vision  fails."''    The  prophets  had  long  declared 

^  Jer.  xxviii.  9.  ^  Deut.  xviii.  21  f. , 

3  Mess.  Fropk.,  p.  23  f.  *  Ezek.  xii.  22. 


124  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

that  disaster  was  near  at  hand.  As  the  days  went 
by  and  nothing  happened,  the  people  lost  confidence 
in  the  prophetic  forecast.  Ezekiel  himself  does  not 
dispute  the  conclusion,  but  he  does  reject  the  prem- 
ises. He  declares  that  the  present  generation  will 
see  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem,  and  so  have  the  proof 
^  of  prophetic  authority  and  power.  Ezekiel  in  Baby- 
lonia, like  Jeremiah  in  Jerusalem,  gained  repute  as  a 
prophet  as  the  approaching  disaster  became  only  too 
plain  to  his  fellow-exiles.^ 

In  Deutero-Isaiah  we  find  the  most  use  of  this 
kind  of  evidence.  The  appeal  to  fulfilment  is  there 
much  more  frequent  than  anywhere  else  in  the  Old 
Testament.  The  long  sojourn  in  a  foreign  land,  and 
the  inevitable  weakening  of  old  religious  ties,  made  a 
new  apologetic  necessary.  The  prophet  of  the  exile 
seeks  it  in  the  right  place.  The  character  of  Jahveh 
as  Creator  of  the  world,  as  the  providential  director 
of  the  affairs  of  men,  was  the  ground  upon  which  he 
based  his  hope.  Jahveh  is  made  to  challenge  the 
idols  of  Babylon  : — 

"  Bring  forward  your  suit,  saith  Jahveh ; 

Produce  your  idols,  says  Jacob's  king. 

Let  them  draw  near  and  announce  to  us  what  shall  happen. 

The  former  events  how  they  were  foretold,  do  ye  an- 
nounce, that  we  may  reflect  upon  them  : 

Or  else  the  future  events  do  ye  declare  to  us,  that  we 
may  work  their  issue ; 

Announce  the  things  that  are  to  come  hereafter,  that 
we  may  know  that  ye  are  gods."  ^ 

^  See  especially  Ezek.  xxxiii.  33. 

^  Isa.  xli.  21  f.     Cheyne's  translation.     See  also  xlii.  9;  xliii.  8  ff.  ; 
xliv.  7  f. 


THE    PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     125 

Jahveh's  power  to  forecast  the  future — a  power  the 
prophet  denies  to  the  Babylonian  gods — is  a  strong 
argument  for  Israel's  return  to  the  worship  of  the 
God  of  their  fathers. 

In  a  subsequent  passage  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy 
is  looked  at  from  another  side.  Among  the  acts 
of  Israel's  God  the  prophet  specifies  :  "  Fulfilling  the 
word  of  His  servants^  and  the  counsel  of  His 
messengers  He  confirms."- 

This  statement  is  peculiarly  interesting,  because 
it  opens  up  a  field  of  inquiry  somewhat  akin  to  that 
suggested  by  the  statement  that  Jahveh  let  none 
of  Samuel's  words  fall  to  the  ground.^ 

Literally  this  passage  implies  that  Jahveh  fulfils 
what  the  prophets  said  because  they  said  it.  We  are 
reminded  of  the  famous  declaration  of  Elijah  :  "  There 
shall  not  be  dew  nor  rain  these  years,  but  according 
to  my  word."*  Is  it  true  that  Jahveh  delegated  to  a 
prophet  a  power  to  speak  or  act  according  to  his  own 
discretion,  and  that  Jahveh  is  bound  to  support  the 
act  or  deed  ?  Was  that  idea  prevalent  among  the 
prophets  ?  Did  they  believe  themselves  clothed  with 
so  great  a  power  ? 

These  questions  raise  a  large  subject.  We  cannot 
follow  it  out  in  all  directions,  but  will  look  at  the 
matter  in  a  simple  way.  First,  we  may  say  confi- 
dently that  God  never  delegated  to  any  man  a  Divine 
power  to  use  as  he  willed.     Naturally  I  do  not  wish  to 

^  I  follow  Dillmann  and  Cheyne  in  reading  the  plural.  The  sense  and 
parallelism  with  "messengers"  require  this.  The  servants  were  the 
whole  body  of  the  prophets,  not  a  particular  one. 

-  Isa.  xliv.  26.  •*  See  above,  p.  H2.  *  i  Kings  xvii.  i. 


126  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

be  taken  too  literally.  I  suppose  we  are  all  possessed 
with  Divine  power  after  a  sort,  and  we  may  certainly 
use  it  as  we  will.  But  we  are  dealing  here  with 
the  extraordinary  power  of  the  prophet.  The  prophet 
was  a  man  of  God,  not  because  God  was  bound  to 
do  the  prophet's  will,  but  because  the  prophet  was 
bound  to  do  God's  will.  That  Jesus  was  greater 
than  any  prophet,  we  might  know  from  the  stress 
He  lays  upon  the  complete  surrender  of  His  will 
to  God's.^ 

It  is  not  so  sure,  however,  that  the  prophets  them- 
selves always  understood  the  limitation  of  their 
powers.  Amos,  indeed,  comprehended  it,  and  stated 
the  truth  finely :  "  The  Lord  Jahveh  will  take  no 
action  except  He  disclose  His  purpose  to  His  servants 
the  prophets."-  Such  a  passage  as  that  in  Isaiah, 
quoted  above,^  may  be  interpreted  as  a  free  expres- 
sion of  the  same  truth.  The  idea  in  the  prophet's 
mind  may  be  that  Jahveh  confirms  the  words  of  His 
servants,  for  the  very  reason  that  the  word  of  the 
servants  was  the  word  of  the  Master.  It  is  quite 
probable  that  the  distinction  is  one  that  would  not 
occur  to  a  prophet.  His  word  and  Jahveh's  word 
were  so  completely  one  that,  in  his  mind,  a  distinction 
of  cause  and  effect  could  hardly  exist. 

In  these  cases  the  fulfilment  refers  to  the  predic- 
tions of  prophets  who  had  foretold  both  the  exile 
and  the  restoration.   This  seer  discerns  the  end  of  the 

^  It  is  true  that  Jesus  acknowledges  a  power  to  do  that  which  is 
forbidden  by  a  moral  constraint.  He  had  power  to  call  angels  to 
His  succour,  yet  it  would  not  be  right  for  Him  to  do  so  (Matt.  xxvi. 
53  f.).  ^  Amos  iii.  7.  ^  See  p.  124. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     127 

enforced  sojourn  in  Babylon,  and  so  declares  the  end 
as  foreseen  and  foretold.  But  he  had  begun  his 
declarations  of  the  fall  of  Babylon  and  the  release 
of  the  Jews  long  before  it  happened,^ 

The  prophet  therefore,  like  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel 
before  him,  was  soon  able  to  appeal  to  the  fulfilment 
of  his  own  words,  not  as  proof  of  his  own  foresight 
and  sagacity,  but  of  Jahveh's  unbounded  knowledge 
and  power.  Isaiah  xlviii.  is  a  review  of  the  situation 
of  the  exiles  just  after  Cyrus  had  taken  Babylon. 
The  prophet  naturally  sounds  the  note  of  triumph 
because  Jahveh's  word  is  fulfilled,  and  with  this  proof 
he  would  inspire  the  sceptical  exiles  with  a  clearer 
faith.     I  quote  a  single  passage  : — 

"  I  have  declared  the  former  things  from  of  old  : 
yea,  they  went  forth  out  of  My  mouth,  and  I  showed 
them  :  suddenly  I  did  them,  and  they  came  to  pass."  ^ 
In  fact,  the  very  object  of  Jahveh  in  foretelling  what 
should  come  was  the  kindling  of  a  stronger  faith : 
"  Because  I  knew  that  thou  art  obstinate,  and  thy 
neck  is  an  iron  sinew,  and  thy  brow  brass  ;  therefore 
have  I  declared  it  to  thee  from  of  old  ;  before  it  came 
to  pass  I  showed  it  thee ;  lest  thou  shouldst  say.  Mine 
idol  hath  done  them,  and  my  graven  image,  and  my 
molten  image,  hath  commanded  them."  ^  It  was  not 
enough  that  Jahveh  should  restore  exiled  Israel ;  the 
mere  act,  however  glorious,  might  be  attributed  to 
the  images ;  but  when  the  act  was  at  the  same  time 
the  fulfilment  of  prediction  uttered  long  before,  then 

^  Several  years  ago  I  dealt  with  this  subject  in  a  paper  on  the 
Historical  Movement  Traceable  in  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.  Andover  Review, 
August,  1888.  -  Isa.  xlviii.  3.  "  Isa.  xlviii.  4  f. 


128  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

the  forecaster  had  strong  proof  that  he  who  foresaw 
was  also  he  who  fulfilled. 

The  problem  of  the  restoration  is  just  now  a  vexed 
one  among  Biblical  scholars.  There  is  a  rapidly 
growing  belief  that  there  was,  properly  speaking,  no 
restoration  at  all,  so  far  as  the  exiles  were  concerned  : 
that  to  the  extent  that  Jerusalem  was  rebuilt,  it  was 
the  work  of  those  Jews  who  had  never  left  Palestine. 
It  falls  to  me  to  take  up  this  difficult  problem  in 
another  place  ;^  it  only  concerns  me  here  to  say 
that  if  any  of  the  exiles  returned  to  Judah,  and  it  is 
difficult  to  believe  otherwise,  their  faith  in  their  God 
was  largely  rekindled  by  the  argument  from  the  fulfil- 
ment of  prophecy.  Whatever  final  value  the  argument 
may  have  in  apologetics,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
it  has  served  its  purpose  in  its  day. 

But,  after  all,  the  evidence  from  fulfilment  was  in 
greatest  vogue  in  the  Apostolic  age.  Jesus  did,  indeed, 
appeal  to  this  argument,^  but  only  rarely.  To  the 
Apostles,  whose  field  of  labour  was  the  race  of  Israel, 
it  was  the  chief  and  most  effective  argument.  The 
Jews  believed  that  there  was  a  great  body  of  predic- 
tive prophecy  in  their  Scriptures ;  they  believed  that 
it  would  be  fulfilled  to  the  very  letter ;  ^  the  test  of 
the  Messiah  would  be  His  correspondence  to  prophecy. 

It  is  clear  then  that  to  convince  a  Jew  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ,  it  was  necessary  to  show  that  the 
life  of  Jesus  was  in  accord  with  Messianic  prophecy. 

^  "Ezra  and  Nehemiah,"  International  Critical  Comtnentary.  (In 
preparation. ) 

-  "The  scriptures  must  be  fulfilled"  (Mark  xiv.  49). 

^  e.g.  The  determination  of  the  birthplace  of  the  Messiah  (Matt.  il. 
4ff.). 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     129 

Thus  we  understand  the  oft-recurring  phrase  in  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel,  which  was  surely  written  for 
Jewish  readers,  "  that  it  might  be  fulfilled,"  as  if 
Jesus  ordered  His  life  according  to  the  predictions 
of  the  prophecy  of  old. 

Certain  Jews  beyond  the  Jordan  found  testimony 
both  to  John  and  to  Jesus  in  the  fulfilment  of  the 
former's  predictions.  Though  John  did  no  sign  and 
therefore  lacked  one  of  the  commonest  credentials 
of  a  prophet,  yet  "  all  things  whatsoever  John  spake 
of  this  man  (Jesus)  have  come  true."  ^ 

Much  stress  was  laid  upon  this  argument  in 
Christian  apologetics  until  quite  recent  times.-  In 
the  present  day  apologists  make  little  appeal  to  this 
argument,  for  the  larger  and  more  accurate  know- 
ledge of  the  Bible  has  greatly  impaired  its  value. 
We  are  now  constrained  to  admit  that  much  of  the 
predictive  prophecy  never  has  been  fulfilled,  and 
probably  never  will  be  fulfilled.  And  that  is  not  all. 
It  has  frequently  happened  that  the  actual  event 
was  radically  different  from  the  prediction.  Naturally 
we  cannot  base  the  inspiration  of  the  prophet  upon 
his  power  to  foresee  the  future,  if  at  any  time  his 
foresight  proves  incorrect.  God's  foreknowledge  is 
accurate  :  and  if  a  man  partook  of  God's  foresight 
his  must  needs  be  accurate  too. 

It  may  seem  that  the  failure  of  correspondence 
between  prediction  and  fulfilment  has  more  than  a 
negative  force.  It  certainly  fails  to  prove  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  prophets  ;  but  does  it  not  also  prove  that 
they  were  not  inspired  ?  The  negro  who  recently 
^  John  X.  41.  2  See  Bruce's  Apologetics. 

K 


I30  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

predicted  a  tidal  wave  which  would  destroy  an 
important  resort  on  the  American  sea-coast  had  quite 
a  following  until  the  day  came  for  fulfilment.  As  the 
sea  obstinately  refused  to  roll  in  at  the  appointed 
time,  it  was  agreed,  even  among  those  who  had  been 
deluded,  that  the  prophet  was  a  fraud.  Is  a  similar 
judgment  to  be  pronounced  upon  Jeremiah  because 
some  of  his  predictions  still  await  fulfilment  ?  Or  do 
the  Apostles  lose  credit  because  they  declared  that 
Jesus  would  return  to  earth  in  their  day? 

We  must  lay  aside  any  consideration  of  time  ;  that 
is,  mere  delay  in  fulfilment  is  not  to  be  reckoned 
against  the  foretellers.  The  nearer  one  comprehends 
the  mind  of  God,  the  less  arbitrary  are  distinctions  of 
time  and  place.  One  day  is  as  a  thousand  years,  and 
a  thousand  years  as  one  day.^  If  a  prophecy  is 
reasonably  fulfilled  in  other  respects,  the  time  question 
need  never  disturb  us.  This  consideration  helps  a 
little  in  removing  the  difficulty;  but  it  must  be 
frankly  admitted  that  it  does  not  go  far.  We  are 
forced  to  admit  that  a  true  prophet  may  be  an 
indifferent  forecaster,  or  else  deny  that  there  ever  was 
a  true  prophet. 

The  prophets  were  sent  to  Israel  to  save  the 
nation,  not  to  play  the  role  of  soothsayers  and  to 
withdraw  the  veil  of  the  future  to  satisfy  a  morbid 
curiosity.  It  is  but  occasionally  that  they  venture 
predictions  at  all,  and  then  chiefly  as  expressions  of 
their  sublime  faith  in  God.  It  is  clear  that  the 
faulty    interpretation    of    the    prophets    has    been 

^  See  Phillips  Brooks'  sermon  on  "The  Shortness  of  Time"  ;  and 
Briggs'  Alessianic  Prophecy,  p.  52  ff. 


THE  PROPHET'S  CREDENTIALS  131 

responsible  for  no  little  of  the  mischief.  They  have 
been  made  to  predict  where  they  did  not  predict  at 
all,^  and  they  have  been  made  to  foretell  details 
which  were  quite  foreign  to  their  minds.2  xhe 
prophet  was  led  to  see  that  the  conditions  in 
Israel  would  produce  certain  results  whether  of  weal 
or  woe.  They  declare  what  those  results  will  be, 
hoping  thereby  to  restrain  Israel  from  the  vice  which 
will  result  in  evil,  or  to  arouse  them  to  the  virtue 
which  will  issue  in  good.  They  were  not  trying  so 
much  to  disclose  in  detail  what  the  future  would  be, 
as  to  kindle  enthusiasm  for  a  sober,  righteous,  and 
godly  life.  They  dressed  up  their  picture  of  the 
future  so  as  to  make  it  impressive  for  the  present. 
They  are  therefore  scarcely  to  be  held  responsible 
for  a  failure  in  accuracy.  They  were  not  realists,  but 
idealists  of  the  boldest  sort.  A  novelist  is  condemned 
by  a  realistic  critic  because  a  character  he  has  por- 
trayed is  not  true  to  life.  But  what  does  that  matter 
if  the  character  is  interesting  and  instructive  ? 
'  Moreover,  as  already  suggested,  much  of  the  pre- 
3iction  was  conditional  ^  upon  Israel's  conduct.  The 
brightness   or    darkness    of    the    future,   which    the 

^  e.g.  when  St.  Matthew  quotes  "Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  My 
son"  from  Hosea  xi.  i,  where  it  is  a  mere  historical  statement  without 
allusion  to  the  future  at  all. 

^  In  the  Bethlehem  prophecy  already  alluded  to,  it  was  no  part  of 
the  prophet's  purpose  to  foretell  where  Jesus  Christ  should  be  born 
(see  Micah  v.  2). 

^  Conditional  prophecy  is  a  big  subject  in  itself.  Jonah  was  un- 
willing to  announce  the  destruction  of  Nineveh  because  he  felt  sure 
that  the  Ninevites  would  repent,  and  then  God  would  not  fulfil  his 
prediction.  He  knew  that  the  issue  of  his  forecast  depended  upon  the 
conduct  of  the  people  whose  destruction  he  announced. 


132  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

prophet  graphically  depicts,  is  dependent  upon  the 
life  of  the  people.  Many  a  glorious  prediction 
remains  unfulfilled  because  the  nation  was  too  un- 
worthy, and  some  fearful  disasters  announced  by  the 
prophets  failed  to  appear,  because  Israel  repented. 

Finally,  it  must  be  noted  that  inspiration  and  in- 
fallibility are  by  no  means  the  same.  A  prophet 
might  have  his  whole  soul  charged  with  the  Spirit  of 
God  without  becoming  thereby  possessed  of  a  know- 
ledge of  the  future,  which  God  has  wisely  kept  ex- 
clusively within  His  own  ken. 

Prophecy  urgently  demands  a  more  immediate 
test  than  fulfilment  affords.  To  take  the  problem  of 
Zedekiah  and  his  court,  already  quoted,^  it  is  plain 
that  the  test  of  fulfilment  could  not  be  determined 
for  two  years.  If  Hananiah  was  right,  however,  it 
was  essential  that  the  whole  power  of  the  nation 
should  be  marshalled  for  a  defensive  war ;  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  Jeremiah  was  right,  then  the  people  must 
beat  their  swords  into  plowshares,  and  their  spears 
into  pruning-hooks.  Jeremiah's  prediction  could  not 
be  fulfilled  if  Hananiah's  advice  was  taken,  nor  could 
the  latter's  hopeful  outlook  be  realised  if  Jeremiah's 
tame  policy  was  followed.  It  was  a  matter  of  life  or 
death  for  the  nation  as  they  adopted  one  course  or  the 
other ;  it  was  evidently  then  a  question  of  great 
moment,  whose  credentials  were  valid. 

In  the   passage   of  Deuteronomy   quoted  above  ^ 

there  is  a  suggestion  of  a  test  which  is  less  definite 

than  signs  or  fulfilment,  but  nevertheless  reaches  a 

much  higher  truth.     The  writer's  argument  may  be 

^  See  p.  107  f.  ^  Deut.  xiii.  ;  see  p.  119. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     133 

plainly  stated.  Under  no  circumstances  are  you  to 
worship  other  gods  than  Jahveh.  No  matter  how 
cunningly  you  may  be  counselled,  no  matter  by  what 
miracles  your  seducers  may  support  their  plea,  it 
is  a  fundamental  obligation  that  you  be  loyal  to 
Jahveh.  A  prophet  may  arise  able  to  work  the  most 
wonderful  signs,  but  if  he  urges  you  to  depart  from 
Jahveh,  he  is  a  false  and  mischievous  prophet,  and  is 
to  meet  the  penalty  of  death. 

There  is  therefore  a  moral  standard  to  which  the 
prophet  must  conform,  and  the  value  of  his  prophecy 
was  to  be  measured  by  that  standard.  A  prophet 
who  advises  the  people  to  do  wrong  is  a  false  prophet, 
even  if  he  is  able  to  work  miracles.  Whatever  value 
the  sign  might  have  as  evidence,  it  must  always  give 
way  to  the  higher  test,  conformity  to  the  truth. 
Hananiah  made  a  great  hit  before  the  people  by 
breaking  the  symbol  of  submission  upon  his  adver- 
sary's neck ;  Jeremiah  put  an  iron  yoke  in  place  of 
the  wooden  one  to  show  that  truth  could  not  be  dis- 
posed of  so  summarily.  In  that  very  controversy 
Jeremiah  seems  to  have  groped,  even  though  some- 
what blindly,  after  that  highest  standard  of  prophecy. 
His  point  was  that  the  people  had  reason  to  believe 
his  message,  all  the  more  because  it  foreboded  an 
evil  time.  If  the  people  had  paused  to  analyse, 
instead  of  madly  seizing  at  straws  in  conformity  with 
their  desires,  they  might  have  seen  many  reasons  to 
urge  the  accuracy  of  Jeremiah's  forecast.  He  had 
prophesied  already  for  several  years,  and  had  shown 
that  he  could  not  be  swerved  by  persecution.  The 
political  outlook  was  all  in  favour  of  Jeremiah.     The 


134  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

impotence  of  an  alliance  of  small  jealous  nations 
against  the  great  power  of  Babylon,  and  the  futility 
of  dependence  upon  Egyptian  aid,  had  been  shown 
again  and  again  in  history.  However  difficult  the 
problem  appeared  to  Zedekiah's  court,  it  is  plain 
now,  and  was  plain  then,  on  which  side  was  the  lover 
of  truth  and  its  upholder  at  whatever  personal  peril. 
V  V  Jesus  develops  this  idea,  and  has  given  us  in  a  few 
sayings  the  final  credentials  which  we  may  ask  of 
any  prophet,  and  by  which  we  may  determine  the 
validity  of  any  prophetic  utterance.  "  Beware  of  the 
false  prophets,"  He  said,  showing  that  He  had  this 
very  problem  in  mind, "  which  come  to  you  in  sheep's 
clothing,  but  inwardly  they  are  ravening  wolves.  By 
their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.  .  .  .  Every  good  tree 
bringeth  forth  good  fruit ;  but  the  corrupt  tree  bringeth 
forth  evil  fruit.  A  good  tree  cannot  bring  forth  evil 
fruit,  neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit. 
.  .  .  Therefore  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."^ 

One  might  be  unable  to  distinguish  the  grape-vine 
from  the  thorn-bush,  but  every  man  knows  the 
difference  between  grapes  and  thorns,  and  the  fruit 
determines  the  vine  which  bears  it.  If  grapes  are 
borne,  then  the  plant  is  a  grape-vine,  and  no  miracle 
could  prove  it  a  thorn-bush.  If  the  produce  was 
thorns,  then  no  sign,  high  as  heaven  or  deep  as 
sheol,  could  prove  that  the  plant  which  bore  it  was  a 
grape-vine.  That  was  the  principle  of  His  answer  to 
His  troubled  forerunner.  He  staked  the  Baptist's 
faith  upon  the  fruit  of  the  tree.  "  Go  your  way  and 
tell  John  the  things  which  ye  do  hear  and  see :  the 
^  Matt.  vii.  15  ff. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     135 

blind  receive  their  sight,  and  the  lame  walk,  the 
lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear,  and  the  dead 
are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  the  gospel  preached 
to  them.  And  blessed  is  he,  whosoever  shall  find 
none  occasion  of  stumbling  in  Me."^ 

Yet  this  test  is  not  devoid  of  difficulty.  It  cannot 
always  be  of  immediate  application ;  man  is  im- 
patient to  pull  up  the  tares  at  once,  and  finds  it  hard 
to  wait  until  the  harvest  days  clearly  reveal  the 
difference  between  the  wheat  and  the  weeds.  Occa- 
sionally it  is  important  to  have  the  knowledge  at 
once,  though  more  often  than  we  realise  it  is  the 
path  of  wisdom  to  allow  full  liberty  to  the  suspected 
prophet.  The  fuller  chance  he  has  to  bear  fruit,  the 
sooner  his  real  character  will  be  revealed.  The  world 
rids  itself  of  false  prophets  quickly,  when  once  their 
falseness  is  convincingly  shown.  The  Church  would 
have  freed  herself  from  heretical  prophets  more  com- 
pletely if,  instead  of  putting  them  in  jail,  she  had 
hired  a  hall  for  them. 

Jesus  offers  another  test,  however,  which  is  of  im- 
mediate application.  It  was  given  for  the  benefit  of 
those  who  were  perplexed  about  their  relations  to 
Him.  Was  He  a  good  man,  as  some  declared,  or 
did  He  deceive  the  people,  as  others  alleged  ?  Should 
one  follow  His  word  loyally,  or  join  those  who  were 
already  beginning  to  hound  Him  to  death  }^ 

To   those   who   were   thus   troubled,  Jesus   offers 

1  Matt.  xi.  4  ff. 

^  A  wiser  course  than  the  latter  was  indeed  open ,  as  suggested  later 
by  Gamaliel  about  the  Apostles  (Acts  v.  34  ff.).  But  to  the  average 
Jew  there  were  but  two  sides,  for  God  or  against  Him,  and  the  choice 
could  not  wait. 


136  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

this  help :  "If  any  man  willeth  to  do  His  will,  he 
shall  know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it  be  of  God,  or 
whether  I  speak  from  Myself."^ 

Here  is  a  test  of  prophecy  which  lies  wholly  in  the 
hearer.  There  is  a  quality  in  him,  provided  his  heart 
is  in  the  right  place,  which  makes  him  a  capable 
judge  of  the  Divine  in  another.  There  is  a  truth  in 
his  own  heart  which  answers  to  the  truth  in  another's 
heart.  To  be  a  judge  of  the  truth,  it  is  a  prerequisite 
that  one  be  a  lover  of  the  truth. 

These  two  tests  of  Jesus  are  the  final  ones.  The 
latter  we  are  in  need  of  applying  all  the  time.  This 
would  have  saved  Ahab  from  the  terrible  death  to 
which  he  was  led  by  heeding  the  false  voice  of  his 
subservient  seers ;  it  would  have  saved  Ahaz  from 
his  costly  alliance  with  Assyria ;  it  would  have  saved 
Zedekiah  from  the  fatal  policy  which  he  adopted  as 
the  result  of  the  specious  counsels  of  Hananiah. 
Every  one  of  these  kings  desired  to  do  his  own  will, 
and  would  have  had  his  God  confirm  that,  even  as 
many  a  Christian's  version  of  the  Lord's  Prayer 
would  properly  be  "  my  will  be  done  on  earth  as 
God's  is  done  in  heaven." 

The  first  test,  that  of  the  fruits,  has  been  relent- 
lessly applied,  and  has  separated  the  Hananiahs 
from  the  Jeremiahs.  As  early  as  the  making  of  the 
Greek  version  the  fruits  were  known,  and  Hananiah 
and  others  of  his  ilk  were  called  by  a  name  which 
their  contemporaries  could  scarcely  give  them — false 
prophets.  Every  prophet  of  the  present  must  know 
that  he  must  face  both  tests.     If  he  is  a  true  prophet 

^  John  vii.  17. 


THE   PROPHET'S   CREDENTIALS     137 

he  will  know  it  himself,  and  need  have  no  fear  of  the 
derisive  cries  which  may  beset  him  ;  for  in  the  end 
even  the  world  will  judge  him  by  his  fruits.  Many 
a  prophet  has  been  denounced  in  his  day  as  a 
bramble-bush  who,  when  the  test  of  the  harvest  could 
be  applied,  was  shown  to  be  the  choicest  vine,  because 
he  had  brought  forth  the  choicest  fruit.^ 

^  See  Isa.  liii. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE   WRITINGS  OF   THE   PROPHETS 

FOR  the  knowledge  of  the  prophets  who  pre- 
ceded Amos,  we  are  limited  to  such  information 
as  we  find  incorporated  in  the  history  of  Israel  and 
Judah.  The  historians  chose  such  portions  of  pro- 
phetic biography  as  were  most  serviceable  in  throwing 
light  upon  the  religious  history  of  the  people.  The 
excerpts,  usually  mere  fragments,  fail  to  satisfy  one 
who  would  gladly  know  more  of  such  men  as  Nathan, 
Gad,  Iddo,  Ahijah,  Shemaiah,  and  Micaiah.  The 
selected  portions  are  apparently  taken  bodily  from 
lives  of  the  prophets.  These  lives,  however,  are  not 
autobiographies ;  the  prophets  did  not  write  their 
own  histories.  Yet  there  is  evidence  that  these  early 
seers  used  the  pen  as  well  as  the  voice. 

The  Chronicler  names  as  sources  of  his  information 
a  long  list  of  prophetic  histories.  We  find  the  follow- 
ing so  mentioned  :  the  Words  of  Samuel  the  Seer, 
the  Words  of  Nathan  the  Prophet,  the  Words  of  Gad 
the  Seer  ;  ^  the  Prophecy  of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  the 
Vision  of  Iddo  the  Seer;^  the  Words  of  Shemaiah 
the  Prophet  and  Iddo  the  Seer ;  ^  A  Midrash  of  the 
Prophet  Iddo;*  the  Words  of  Jehu  the  son  of 
Hanani;^  the  Acts  of  Uzziah  written  by  Isaiah  the 

'   I  Chron.  xxix.  29.        '  2  Chron.  ix.  29.        ^  2  Chron.  xii.  15. 
*  2  Chron.  xiii.  22.  '  2  Chron.  xx.  34, 

138 


WRITINGS   OF   THE   PROPHETS      139 

son  of  Amoz  the  prophet ;  ^  the  Words  of  the 
Seers.2  According  to  these  statements,  nearly  all 
of  the  prophets  known  to  us  were  historians.  By 
"  the  Words  of  Samuel,"  the  Chronicler  means  writing 
of  Samuel.  It  is  expressly  said  that  Isaiah  wrote 
the  chronicles  of  Uzziah. 

It  is  true  that  the  Chronicler's  authority  is  not 
very  highly  esteemed.  The  opinion  prevails  widely 
among  scholars  that  all  the  above-quoted  sources  are, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  one  and  the  same,  and  that  a 
Midrash  or  annotated  edition  of  the  history  of  Israel 
and  Judah.^  The  sections  in  which  a  certain  prophet 
figured  were  called  by  his  name,  and  finally  assigned 
to  his  authorship.  It  would  therefore  follow  that  the 
above-named  prophets  were,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
merely  figures  in  the  history,  and  not  authors  of 
history. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  beyond  question  that  the 
authors  of  all  Hebrew  history  were  prophets.  The 
books  from  Joshua  to  Kings  were  called  by  the 
Hebrews  the  Former  Prophets ;  this  naming  may  be 
a  critical  blunder,  as  Kittel  supposes,  but  there  is 
a  good  deal  of  sober  truth  in  it,  nevertheless,  for  the 
history  everywhere  bears  the  prophetic  imprint.  The 
motive  is  nowhere  historical,  but  everywhere  religious. 
The   books  were   composed   with   a   distinct   moral 

^  2  Chron.  xxvi.  22. 

-  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  19.  I  follow  LXX.  reading  D''Tnn  instead  of  a 
proper  name  Hozai ;  so  Benzinger,  Kuenen,  and  most  others. 

^  But  if  we  follow  LXX.,  as  Benzinger  does,  in  i  Chron.  xxxii.  32, 
reading  "and  in  the  books  of  the  kings,"  etc.,  then  some  of  the  prophecies 
were  surely  distinct  writings.  See  further,  Kittel,  Hist.,  ii.  223  flf.  ; 
Driver,  L.O.T,^,  529  f . ;  Kuenen,  Einkitung,  i.  ii.  155  ff. ;  Benzin- 
ger, Bikher  der  Chronik,  x.  ff. 


140  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

purpose.  The  authors  cared  little  about  the  detailed 
facts  of  history,  but  much  about  the  religious  lessons 
of  the  same.  The  life  of  the  people  of  the  past  was 
significant  for  the  life  of  the  people  of  the  present. 
It  was  perfectly  natural,  therefore,  that  the  defence 
of  St.  Stephen  the  martyr  should  be  a  review  of 
Jewish  history. 

Now  it  is  by  no  means  improbable  that  the 
prophets  in  their  addresses  were  wont  to  tell  historic 
stories  to  reinforce  their  teaching.  In  fact,  we  know 
that  such  appeals  to  the  past  were  not  uncommon. 
The  prophets  were  the  educated  men  ;  they  knew  the 
history  of  their  people.  They  may  themselves  have 
never  gone  beyond  the  oral  description  of  particular 
events.  Their  historical  stories  may  have  been  put 
in  written  form  by  others.  But  some  prophets  cer- 
tainly wrote  the  history  of  their  nation,  and  it  may 
well  be  that  those  known  to  us  did  an  important  part 
of  this  work.  The  Chronicler,  therefore,  may  have 
preserved  a  true  tradition,  though  inexact  in  his 
explicit  statements.  His  professed  extracts  from 
prophetic  writings  show  the  post-exilic  language ;  he 
therefore  does  not  quote  from  original  sources.  My 
point  is  that  from  the  Chronicler's  witness,  we  may 
reasonably  hold  that  these  were  prophetic  historical 
writings,  even  though  he  does  not  take  literal  ex- 
tracts from  them. 

Further,  the  Chronicler  informs  us  that  Elijah  sent 

a  letter  to  Jehoram  the  king  of  Judah.     The  letter 

was  a  prophecy,  reproaching  the  king  for  his  evil 

courses,  and  predicting  disaster  to  king  and  people.^ 

^  2  Chron.  xxi.  12  ff. 


WRITINGS   OF   THE   PROPHETS      141 

However  it  may  be  with  the  earliest  seers,  certain 
it  is  that  for  Amos  and  those  who  followed  him, 
we  are  on  sure  ground.  For  them  we  are  not 
limited  to  second-hand  information,  but  have  the 
original  sources  ;  not,  indeed,  a  history  of  their  times, 
but  something  far  better,  a  record  of  the  very  words 
of  these  messengers  of  God.  In  this  connexion 
certain  questions  inevitably  force  themselves  upon  us. 

Whence  came  these  records?  Does  the  descriptive 
term  "writing  prophets"  correctly  represent  the  facts? 
Did  these  men  with  their  own  hands  record  their 
utterances?  or  did  some  other  hand  gather  up  such 
fragments  as  were  available?  Again,  did  the  prophets 
write  out  in  advance  what  they  would  say?  or  did 
they  depend  upon  the  memory,  writing  out  each 
utterance  after  its  delivery  ?  And  if  this  last  be  the 
case,  did  they  write  exactly  what  they  had  said  ?  or 
were  they  influenced  by  that  inevitable  human  ten- 
dency to  improve  or  modify  an  address  in  the  course 
of  reproduction?  Finally,  what  was  the  object  of 
writing  ?  Did  their  knowledge  of  the  future  constrain 
them  to  rescue  their  oral  sayings  for  the  sake  of  pos- 
terity, and  for  the  making  of  holy  writ  ?  Had  they 
literary  ambitions  ?  Or  did  they  write,  as  they  spoke, 
with  an  immediate  object?  and  was  that  the  moral 
and  spiritual  upbuilding  of  the  men  of  their  day  and 
generation  ? 

Some  of  these  questions  are  not  peculiar  to  the 
Old  Testament.  When  as  a  lad  I  was  reading  the 
orations  of  Cicero  against  Catiline,  I  supposed  at  first 
that  I  was  reading  speeches  which  the  great  Roman 
orator  had  written  in  advance,  and  then  read  to  his 


142  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

auditors.  But  I  came  across  passages  which  were 
due  to  the  attitude  of  Catiline  during  the  deHvery  of 
the  speech.  Cicero  could  not  have  anticipated  that 
quailing  of  his  victim.  Then  I  began  to  ask  most  of 
the  questions  catalogued  above,  and  especially  this  : 
if  Cicero  or  a  secretary  wrote  the  speeches  from 
memory,  how  do  we  know  that  we  have  his  ipsissima 
verba  ?  For  stenographers  existed  neither  in  ancient 
Rome  nor  in  ancient  Israel.^  Similar  questions  con- 
front us  in  the  New  Testament.  We  have  there  what 
purport  to  be  the  words  of  Jesus.  Now  our  Lord  did 
not  write  Himself  The  record  of  His  sayings  is  due 
to  His  disciples,  in  the  broad  sense  of  that  term. 
The  words  of  Jesus  differ  very  much  as  reported  by 
St.  John  and  by  the  other  Evangelists.  Are  we  quite 
sure  that  we  have  His  exact  words?  Manifestly  not, 
though  we  are  loath  to  admit  such  an  unwelcome 
truth  ;  for  the  same  parable  or  saying  frequently 
exists  in  variant  forms  in  different  gospels.  Some 
modern  scholars  have  been  making  an  effort  to  re- 
cover the  exact  words  of  Jesus  by  a  retranslation  into 
Aramaic,2  the  native  tongue  of  our  Lord.  Their  efforts 
have  not  been  very  kindly  received,  perhaps  because 
Christians  dread  to  see  this  question  fairly  opened. 
Such  an  apprehension  is  groundless.  We  may  have 
our  confidence  shaken  in  the  possession  of  our  Lord's 
exact  words  ;  but  the  conviction  will  be  persistent 
that  we  are  in  no  doubt  about  His  teaching. 

Our  concern  now%  however,  is  not  the  greatest  of 
all  teachers,  but  those  men  of  the  nation  of  Jesus 

^  See  additional  note  (8). 

^  See,  e.g.  Briggs,  Gen.  Introd. ,  and  works  on  New  Test. 


WRITINGS   OF   THE   PROPHETS      143 

who  preceded  Him,  and  gave  to  the  world  such  lesser 
light  as  God  had  been  able  to  bestow  upon  them.  To 
answer  the  inevitable  questions,  we  have  some  direct 
and  valuable  evidence  and  some  suggestive  hints. 
From  a  careful  study  of  these  we  ought  to  be  able  to 
draw  some  fairly  accurate  conclusions,  though  we 
may  not  find  a  detailed  answer  to  every  question 
raised  above. 

A  word  of  warning  may  well  be  interposed  here. 
We  always  need  to  be  careful  not  to  confuse  facts  and 
conclusions  from  the  facts.  There  has  been  too  much 
of  that  mixture  in  Biblical  studies  both  by  the 
harmonisers  of  the  past  and  the  radicals  of  the 
present.  One  is  bound  to  interpret,  he  is  of  little 
use  as  a  teacher  otherwise ;  but  he  is  an  unsafe  guide 
unless  it  is  easy  to  see  when  he  is  arraying  indisput- 
able facts,  and  when  he  is  stating  his  inferences. 
Facts  are  better  on  the  whole,  though  interpretation  is 
more  interesting.  In  the  work  before  us  we  will  first 
of  all  present  some  facts  which  no  one  can  gainsay. 

In  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  king  of  Judah, 
605  B.C.,  and  therefore  twenty-one  years  after  Jeremiah 
had  begun  to  preach,  the  prophet  by  Divine  command 
dictated  to  Baruch,  who  served  as  his  secretary,  the 
prophecies  he  had  delivered  in  the  course  of  his 
ministry.  The  object  of  gathering  a  written  collec- 
tion of  his  utterances  is  stated  in  these  words  :  "  It 
may  be  that  the  house  of  Judah  will  hear  all  the  evil 
which  I  purpose  to  do  unto  them  ;  that  they  may 
return  every  man  from  his  evil  way ;  that  I  may  for- 
give their  iniquity  and  their  sin."  ^ 

^  Jer.  xxxvi.  3  ;  cf.  also  ver.  7, 


144  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

The  laborious  task  occupied  Jeremiah  and  his  scribe 
a  year  or  more ;  ^  we  may  be  sure  that  it  was  a  big 
year's  work. 

Then  Baruch  read  the  whole  collection  of  prophe- 
cies— the  first  book  of  the  kind  known  to  us  in 
Hebrew  history — first  to  the  people  assembled  to 
keep  a  special  fast,  and  later  to  the  king's  officers 
who  had  been  told  of  the  bold  step  of  the  persecuted 
prophet.  These  men  felt  that  they  must  tell  the 
king,  first  giving  the  authors  of  the  dangerous 
oracles  time  to  hide.  The  king  seemed  to  think,  like 
the  Church  of  Rome  with  its  Index  expurgatorius, 
that  unwelcome  words  may  be  wiped  out  by  fire. 
The  roll  was  burnt ;  but  the  prophet  was  left,  and  he 
immediately  set  to  work  to  replace  the  lost  book  ;  and 
added  to  the  new  edition  many  prophecies  of  similar 
import. 

Such  are  the  salient  facts  told  in  Jeremiah  xxxvi., 
a  notable  chapter  and  valuable  for  many  reasons.  It 
appears  that  Jeremiah  had  been  preaching  for  some 
twenty  years  without  any  thought  of  recording  his 
addresses.  What  led  him  to  adopt  a  new  course? 
To  say  that  God  commanded  it  solves  the  problem 
only  to  raise  it  in  another  form  :  Why  did  God  so 
command  ? 

Jeremiah  himself  gives  a  reason  for  Baruch's 
reading  the  prophecies  to  the  people  rather  than 
himself :  "  I  am  restrained  ;  I  am  unable  to  enter  the 
house  of  Jahveh."  ^    What  was  the  restraint  ?     The 

*  The  command  was  given  in  the  fourth  year,  the  finished  book  was 
read  in  the  ninth  month  of  the  fifth  year  (Jer.  xxxvi.  i,  9).  Therefore 
the  time  intervening  was  from  ten  to  twenty  months. 

-  Jer.  xxxvi.  5. 


WRITINGS   OF   THE   PROPHETS      145 

word  I  have  rendered  "  restrained "  may  mean  im- 
prisoned ;  but  that  sense  is  inapplicable  here ;  the 
princes  advised  Baruch  that  he  and  his  master  had 
better  seek  a  secure  hiding-place  as  promptly  as 
possible.  If  Jeremiah  were  already  in  jail,  he  could 
seek  no  shelter  from  the  king's  wrath.  The  re- 
straint might  be  due  to  a  vow  or  to  "a  ceremonial 
impurity,"  as  W.  Robertson  Smith  holds ;  ^  but 
that  sense  is  weak  in  this  place.  Jeremiah  was 
scarcely  the  man,  priest  though  he  was,  to  be  kept 
from  his  real  duty  by  petty  questions  of  ritual. 
The  restraint  might  be,  and  I  believe  was,  the 
danger  to  which  the  prophet  would  be  exposed 
the  moment  he  appeared  in  public.  The  king's  ire 
had  been  so  aroused  that  Jeremiah  could  only  speak 
in  public  at  the  peril  of  his  life.  If  he  had  come  for- 
ward again  with  one  of  his  to  the  king  treasonable 
utterances,  it  would  certainly  have  been  his  last 
message.  He  was  ready  to  lay  down  his  life  for  his 
God  ;  but  at  that  time  it  would  be  a  useless  and 
untimely  sacrifice.^  Still  the  enforced  silence  galled 
him  now  as  much  as  the  enforced  speaking  at  another 
time.  In  his  dilemma  the  thought  came  to  him  that 
the  pen  was  mightier  than  the  sword.  The  works 
of  Micah,  and  of  other  prophets  doubtless,  existed 
already  in  written  form.^  Here  was  an  idea  destined 
to  be  so  important  in  his  work  that  Jeremiah  easily, 

*  Religion  of  the  Semites,  p.  436  f. ;  so  Duhm,  "  Jeremia,"  in  loc. 

^  But  a  short  time  before  this  the  priests  and  prophets  had  tried  to 
secure  his  execution  ;  the  temple  would  not  be  a  very  safe  place  for  the 
delivery  of  such  prophecies  as  he  had  written.  The  issue  of  events 
showed  his  wisdom.     See  also  chap.  x. 

*  Jer.  xxvi.  18. 

L 


146  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

and  I  believe  rightly,  traces  its  origin  to  the  inbreath- 
ing spirit  of  God.  Jehoiakim  might  silence  the  voice, 
but  the  pen  would  make  a  record  which  would  tell 
its  tale  even  if  the  author  paid  the  penalty  with  his 
life.  So  it  appears  that  the  true  interpretation  of 
these  words  gives  us  not  only  the  reason  why  Baruch 
was  reader  as  well  as  penman,  but  also  why  God 
commanded  the  prophet  to  write. 

Jeremiah's  object  in  writing,  however,  is  not  a 
matter  of  doubtful  disputation.  He  had  no  thought 
of  literary  fame,  no  knowledge  of  the  sacred  writings 
in  which  in  the  providence  of  God  his  words  would 
find  no  inconspicuous  place ;  he  was  concerned  with 
the  immediate  and  pressing  problems  of  his  own 
day.  If  he  could  turn  the  present  inhabitants  of 
Judah  from  their  sinful  ways,  God  could  be  trusted 
to  raise  up  other  men  for  dealing  with  the  problems 
which  lay  beyond  his  horizon. 

Writing  was  a  rare  accomplishment  in  Jeremiah's 
time.^  Whether  he  could  handle  the  pen  himself  or 
not,  we  do  not  know,  and  need  not  care.  We  are  told 
that  he  did  not  write  himself,  and  beyond  that  we 
must  be  content  to  remain  in  ignorance. 

We  know  that  these  prophecies  were  not  written 
until  after  their  delivery,  and  many  of  them  very 
long  after  their  delivery.  Any  man  could  gather  up 
a  summary  of  his  teaching  during  past  years  from 
memory,  if  he  were  a  true  prophet,  zealous  for  truth  ; 
but  no  man  could  recall  the  very  words  he  had  used 

^  In  enlightened  countries  now,  nearly  every  person  can  read  and 
write.  In  Israel,  writing  was  a  profession,  known  and  practised  by 
comparatively  few. 


WRITINGS   OF   THE   PROPHETS      147 

in  his  addresses.  To  suppose  that  Jeremiah  wrote 
verbathn  in  the  year  605  what  he  had  said  in  the 
year  626  and  the  years  intervening,  puts  a  burden 
upon  inspiration  which  is  an  unnecessary  stumbling- 
block.  The  Holy  Spirit  stirs  men  to  their  work,  but 
does  not  do  it  for  them.  We  are  therefore  constrained 
to  infer  that  Jeremiah  reproduced  such  of  his  utter- 
ances as  abided  in  his  memory  and  were  adapted  to 
his  present  object,  in  their  original  substance,  but  in 
such  form  and  language  as  would  make  them  most 
powerful  in  their  present  task.  His  interest  was  not 
archaeological,  but  spiritual. 

What  we  know  of  Jeremiah's  writing  gives  us  the 
key  to  the  writing  of  the  other  prophets.  There  is 
evidence  in  abundance  that  they,  too,  did  not  write 
in  advance.  To  say  nothing  of  the  a  priori  improb- 
ability of  an  ancient  prophet  standing  before  the 
people  with  a  manuscript  or  a  tablet  in  his  hand,  or 
repeating,  like  a  parrot,  words  already  written  and 
learned  by  heart,  there  is  much  direct  and  conclusive 
evidence.  There  are  many  cases  in  which  they, 
like  Cicero,  adapted  what  they  had  to  say  to  the 
conditions  under  which  they  were  speaking.  A  few 
cases  will  make  this  point  clear. 

Amaziah  broke  in  upon  Amos  while  he  was 
relating  a  series  of  visions.  The  prophet  turned 
upon  him  with  an  apologia  pro  vita  sua,  and  a  pre- 
diction concerning  the  priest  which  he  could  scarcely 
have  thought  of  before,  and  certainly  could  not  record 
until  after  its  delivery.  Isaiah  bids  Ahaz  ask  a  great 
sign  which  he  holds  himself  ready  to  give  upon  the 
spot,  and  when  the  king  declines  his  offer  the  prophet 


148  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

pours  forth  ex  tempore  the  wonderful  Immanuel 
prophecy ,1  which  has  been  such  a  stumbling-block  to 
commentators.  Isaiah  quotes  a  wonderfully  bright 
prophecy  of  Zion's  glory,  apparently  intending  it  as 
the  text  of  a  hopeful  address.  But  seeing  the 
actual  conditions  of  the  people  before  him,  he  is 
turned  from  his  purpose,  and  pours  forth  a  severe 
indictment  of  the  faithless  and  wicked  nation.^ 

Jeremiah  preached  his  sermon  on  the  temple,  a 
sermon  which  brought  so  much  trouble  to  him,  be- 
cause he  heard  the  people  crying  "  the  temple  of 
Jahveh,"  putting  a  misplaced  trust  in  God's  interest 
in  a  sacred  place.^  Watching  the  potter  one  day  at 
work  with  his  wheel,  he  was  led  to  declare  that  God's 
work  in  the  world  was  like  the  potter's  in  the  clay.* 
When  he  spent  a  night  in  the  stocks,  Passhur  did 
not  furnish  him  with  writing  materials,  nevertheless 
Jeremiah  was  ready  in  the  morning  with  a  prophecy 
of  ominous  portent  to  his  persecutor.^  He  was  ever 
prepared  to  answer  on  the  spot  questions  which  were 
brought  to  him  from  the  king.*^  His  discourse  upon 
the  Rechabites  hung  upon  their  refusal  to  take  the 
wine  which  he  offered  them  in  the  presence  of  the 
people.^ 

When  the  elders  of  Israel  came  to  consult  the 
prophet  Ezekiel,  in  exile  in  Babylonia,  he  was  always 
able  to  give  them  a  message  at  once.^  His  fine 
Messianic  prophecy  of  the  resurrection  of  the  nation 
was  occasioned  by  the  despondent  cry  of  the  exiles  : 


^  Isa.  vii. 

-  Isa.ii. 

2  Jer.  vii. 

■*  Jer.  xviii. 

^  Jer.  XX. 

^  e.g,  Jer.  xxi, 

''  Jer.  XXXV. 

^  e.g.  Ezek.  xiv,. 

,   XX. 

WRITINGS   OF   THE   PROPHETS      149 

"  Our  bones  are  dried  up,  and  our  hope  is  lost ;  we 
are  clean  cut  off."^  The  beautiful  passage  in  which  a 
prophet  states  the  requirements  of  God  in  a  manner 
never  excelled,  was  due  to  the  anxious  inquiries  of 
people  who  desired  to  know  the  will  of  God." 

Haggai's  prophecies  are  largely  conversational. 
He  urges  the  people  to  set  about  the  rebuilding  of 
the  temple.  He  presses  the  timeliness  of  the  project 
because  they  excuse  delay  by  saying,  "  The  time  has 
not  come  for  Jahveh's  house  to  be  built."  ^  The  dis- 
paraging remarks  about  the  new  temple  lead  him 
to  declare  that  the  glory  of  this  house  will  yet  exceed 
anything  which  had  been  known  before.'*  The  ques- 
tions he  asked  the  priests  in  the  presence  of  the 
people  and  their  answers  provided  him  with  sugges- 
tions for  a  prophecy.^  Malachi,  hearing  the  people 
ask,  "Wherein  has  God  shown  His  love?"  and 
"Wherein  have  we  polluted  Thee?"^  finds  in  the 
answer  the  message  of  God  to  the  people.  Joel's 
great  Messianic  utterance,  one  of  the  finest  in  Holy 
Writ,  was  prompted  by  the  magnificent  spectacle  of 
the  great  mass  of  the  people,  under  the  lead  of  the 
priests,  pouring  out  their  supplications  for  the  exhibi- 
tion of  God's  mercy.^ 

The  prophet  was  a  man  of  his  times  :  he  was  a 
man  promptly  to  meet  emergencies  as  they  arose. 
He  could  not  be  bound  down  by  a  cut-and-dried 
form,  but  must  be  quick  to  seize  a  chance,  and  to 
drive  home  every   advantage   he   could  gain.     The 

'  Ezek.  xxxvii.  ii.         '^  Micah  vi.  i-8.  ''  Hag.  i.  2. 

^  Hag.  ii.  3  ff.  ''  Hag.  ii,  12  ff.  *'  Mai,  i,  2,  7. 

'  Joel  ii.  18  ff. 


ISO  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

prophets  were  orators  rather  than  essayists.  It  must 
not  be  inferred,  however,  that  the  prophets  had  the 
fixed  habit  of  speaking  as  the  Spirit  gave  them 
utterance.  No  modern  preacher  who  loves  to  trust 
to  ex  tempore  inspiration  can  find  warrant  for  his 
indolent  habit  in  the  example  of  the  prophets. 
If  they  knew  how  to  turn  the  chance  feelings  or 
expressions  of  their  hearers  to  good  account,  there 
is  also  sufficient  testimony  to  the  care  with  which 
they  usually  prepared  their  messages. 

Perhaps  the  best  evidence  of  all,  paradoxical  as  it 
may  seem,  is  the  very  readiness  to  speak  God's  word 
as  the  moment  required.  Our  Lord  counselled  His 
disciples  to  make  no  preparation  beforehand  for  their 
defence  when  they  were  brought  to  trial  for  His  sake. 
The  Spirit  would  not  fail  at  a  critical  time  the  man 
who  had  been  living  in  the  Spirit  always.  The 
nation  which  is  ready  for  sudden  war  is  the  one 
which  has  not  been  idle  in  time  of  peace.  The  man 
who  is  best  prepared  to  speak  unexpectedly  is  the 
one  who  loses  no  opportunity  to  keep  the  mind  full. 
The  prophets  were  men  whose  hearts  were  turned 
toward  God.  Their  minds  were  ever  bent  to  compre- 
hend something  of  the  mystery  of  life.  They  were 
earnest  in  their  efforts  to  solve  the  problems  of 
God's  dealings  with  His  people.  They  were  there- 
fore ready  with  a  message  from  God  when  it  was 
needed. 

The  prophets  say  nothing  about  specific  prepara- 
tion for  particular  prophecies.  Who  would  think  of 
incorporating  into  a  sermon  or  speech  the  method  of 
its  preparation  ?     In  a  book  it  is  permissible  for  an 


WRITINGS   OF   THE   PROPHETS      151 

author  to  make  revelations  from  the  workshop  ;  no 
such  preface  is  tolerable  in  a  speech.  If  the  dis- 
course does  not  tell  its  own  story,  the  hearers  will 
not  accept  any  other  evidence.  Now  the  prophecies 
have  the  internal  witness  to  careful  work.  The 
literary  form,  the  coherence  of  thought,  the  fine 
choice  of  words,  all  proclaim  the  painstaking  labour 
of  a  conscientious  student.  No  one  could  easily 
believe  that  Isaiah's  Song  of  the  Vineyard,^  or  Amos's 
Arraignment  of  the  Seven  Nations,'^  were  impromptu 
efforts. 

There  is  information  which,  when  rightly  under- 
stood, has  a  direct  bearing  on  this  subject.  How 
often  in  the  prophets  we  read  that  God  told  His  mes- 
sengers to  do  a  certain  act,  to  speak  certain  words, 
and  then  that  the  messenger  did  as  he  was  bid. 
There  is  more  in  such  cases  than  a  useless  and 
wearying  tautology.  For  example,  God  directs 
Elijah  to  go  meet  Ahab  in  the  vineyard  of  Naboth 
fitly  to  pronounce  his  doom  on  the  land  obtained  by 
blood  and  theft.^  He  sends  Isaiah  and  his  son  to 
meet  Ahab  on  the  spot  where  the  king  is  studying 
the  problem  of  water  supply,  telling  him  in  advance 
what  he  is  to  say.^  He  tells  Jeremiah  to  carry  his 
girdle  to  the  Euphrates,  and  to  let  it  decay  there." 
He  warns  Ezekiel  that  his  wife  is  to  die,  but  bids 
him  abstain  from  every  external  mark  of  griefs 

What  is  the  meaning  of  such  directions  ?  We  can 
no  longer  hold  that  the  prophet  was  a  mere  machine, 
just  doing  literally  as  he  was  bid,  without  any  active 

^  Isa.  V.  '^  Amos  i.,  ii.  ^  i  Kings  xxi.  17  ff. 

*  Isa.  vii.  ^  Jer.  xiii.  *  Ezek.  xxiv.  15  ff. 


152  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

intelligence  of  his  own.  Samuel  could  not  have 
been  carrying  out  Divine  orders  literally  when  he 
told  the  people  that  he  had  come  to  Bethlehem  to 
offer  a  sacrifice,  when  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  had 
come  to  inaugurate  a  revolution  against  the  house  of 
the  reigning  king.  It  is  easy  to  believe  that  Samuel 
thought  that  God  so  counselled  him  :  it  is  impossible 
to  believe  that  God  actually  did  so.  Moreover,  if 
the  prophets  were  but  the  mechanical  mouthpieces  of 
God,  higher  critics  would  have  been  constrained  to 
give  over  their  attempts  at  analysis  on  the  basis  of 
literary  style. 

Yet  these  directions  are  not  without  meaning.  The 
prophet  believed  that  God  controlled  all  of  his  life, 
not  a  small  part  merely.  There  was  to  him  no  dis- 
tinction between  sacred  and  profane.  There  was  no 
division  of  his  life  into  a  part  which  was  God's 
business,  and  a  part  which  was  his  own.  His  whole 
life  belonged  to  God,  and  was  guided  by  God.  When 
therefore  he  had  adopted  a  certain  course  of  action 
after  due  consideration,  or  went  forth  to  speak  a 
certain  message  after  careful  preparation,  there  was 
only  one  way  to  state  the  fact  to  be  true  to  his  own 
conception,  and  to  be  understood  of  the  people,  and 
that  is  just  the  way  he  does  state  the  fact,  that  God 
told  him  to  do  so.  Would  that  every  prophet  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  were  so  to  prepare  for  his  work  by 
hard  study,  earnest  meditation,  and  fervent  prayer, 
that  he  could  feel  deeply  as  he  went  forth  to  give  the 
results  to  the  world,  that  his  Master  was  but  sending 
him  on  an  errand  !  Then  indeed  he  might  realise  the 
high  privilege  of  the  service  of  God.     Then  he  might 


WRITINGS   OF  THE  PROPHETS      153 

comprehend  in  all  its  fulness  what  Jesus  meant  by 
placing  servantship  above  mastership. 

But  the  previous  preparation  of  the  prophets  was 
not  accomplished  by  the  pen,  and  we  are  now  con- 
cerned with  their  writing.  Whatever  writing  they 
did  certainly  followed  the  delivery  of  their  prophecies. 
The  chief  exception,  if  indeed  there  be  any,  is 
Ezekiel.  Some  scholars  hold  that  Ezekiel  was  dis- 
tinctively the  literary  prophet,  in  that  his  prophecies 
appeared  first  in  written  form.  The  upholders  of 
this  view  make  little  attempt  to  support  it  by 
tangible  evidence.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  sort  of  thing 
about  which  one  easily  forms  an  opinion  from  broad 
general  considerations,  which  it  is  not  easy  to  prove 
or  disprove  by  detailed  evidence.  It  does  not  seem 
worth  while  to  turn  aside  and  take  up  this  question 
fully.  But  if  I  were  to  do  so,  I  am  persuaded  that  we 
should  conclude  that  much  of  Ezekiel  was  certainly 
not  written  in  advance  of  delivery,  and  that,  with  the 
possible  exception  of  chapters  xl.-xlviii.,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  any  of  his  prophecies  were  originally 
issued  in  written  form. 

The  belief  that  prophecies  were  written  long  after 
delivery  is  the  only  reasonable  explanation  of  a  fact 
which  we  notice  again  and  again,  namely,  the  presence 
of  historical  allusions  of  different  periods.  Historical 
allusion  is  the  easiest  and  most  exact  means  of  deter- 
mining the  date  of  any  writing.  But  it  often  happens 
that  we  find  along  with  clear  historical  evidence  of  a 
certain  date,  certain  references  to  a  much  later  time. 
Such  a  condition  may  be  explained  in  three  ways. 
I.  By  assigning  the   prophecies   to   the   later   date. 


154  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

2.  By  supposing  that  an  editor  had  interpolated  the 
later  references  to  which  he  found  the  text  applicable, 

3.  By  holding  that  the  prophets  themselves  coloured 
their  earlier  addresses  by  allusions  to  the  conditions 
which  were  present  at  the  time  of  writing. 

Possibly  all  three  of  these  methods  must  be  used 
in  the  interpretation  of  prophecy.  But  that  the  last 
is  one  to  which  the  student  must  often  turn  is,  I 
believe,  plain  to  the  discerning  eye.  It  seems  quite 
unlikely  that  the  story  of  Isaiah's  call,^  or  Jeremiah's,^ 
could  have  been  written  as  it  stands  at  the  time  the 
call  was  given.  There  is  so  much  in  each  story 
which  a  prophet  could  only  learn  by  experience,  that 
we  are  forced  to  believe  that  the  record  of  the  call 
was  made  as  the  explanation  of  that  experience. 
There  is  a  long  passage  in  Jeremiah  ^  which  seems  to 
belong  to  the  Scythian  invasion.  Many  allusions 
there  have  no  other  such  natural  fitness  as  to  the 
wild  hordes  which  swept  over  the  country  and 
seriously  threatened  Judah.  Yet  there  seem  to  be 
equally  clear  references  to  a  condition  belonging  to  a 
time  some  years  subsequent.*  The  difficulty  is  easily 
removed  in  this  case :  for  we  know  that  Jeremiah 
did  not  write  until  605  B.C. ;  he  was  not  concerned 
with  an  exact  reproduction  of  what  he  had  said 
years  before ;  he  wanted  a  lesson  for  the  present. 
God  had  turned  back  the  terrible  tide  of  barbarians, 
and  He  could  turn  back  the  hosts  of  Babylon.  Jere- 
miah would  naturally  adapt  his  early  utterance  so 
as  to  make  it  forceful  for  the  present. 

'  Isa.  vi.  "  Jer.  i.  ^  Jer.  ii.-vi. 

*  See  further,  Driver's  Introd.^,  p.  252  f.,  and  the  references  there. 


WRITINGS   OF   THE   PROPHETS      155 

That  we  have  most  prophecies  in  an  edition  later 
than  the  delivery,  or  in  substance  merely,  is  undeni- 
ably a  loss  ;  but  the  loss  is  more  apparent  to  the 
literary  than  to  the  religious  interest.  The  moment 
an  author  issues  a  new  edition  of  a  book,  the  value 
of  the  old  editions  becomes  little.  The  student  of 
the  Hebrew  language  finds  it  difficult  and  expensive 
to  keep  up  with  the  new  editions  of  grammars,  lexi- 
cons, commentaries,  etc.  The  latest  is  almost  invari- 
ably the  most  valuable ;  for  the  final  judgment  of  an 
author  is  preferred  to  superseded  opinions.  The 
same  principle  applies  to  the  prophets.  The  written 
issue  of  their  prophecies  bears  the  stamp  of  their 
ripest  judgment.  If  we  had  Jeremiah's  prophecies 
about  the  Scythians  in  their  original  form,  doubtless 
they  would  be  of  greater  historical  value  than  the 
existing  collection  ;  but  we  should  not  have  the  final 
judgment  of  the  prophet.  If  the  prophets  in  reduc- 
ing their  utterances  to  writing  improved  the  form, 
that  is  wholly  a  gain.  Jeremiah  was  the  author  of 
his  prophecies  in  written  form.  Baruch  is  careful  to 
tell  most  explicitly  that  he  wrote  them  from  the 
mouth  of  the  prophet :  the  scribe  was  a  mere  amanu- 
ensis.i 

It  is  highly  probable  that  this  was  the  case  with 
the  other  prophets  as  well.  We  have  a  good  test  of 
this  in  the  case  of  Isaiah.  Some  of  the  prophets  we 
know  only  from  history ;  others  we  know  only  from 

^  Duhm  is  doubtless  in  the  main  right  in  ascribing  the  historical 
parts  of  Jeremiah  to  Baruch,  though  he  goes  pretty  far  at  times.  Jere- 
miah probably  dictated  the  prophecies,  and  Baruch  himself  wrote  the 
historical  settings. 


IS6  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

their  own  works.  Isaiah  we  know  from  both.  Chap- 
ters xxxvi.-xxxix.  are  incorporated  bodily  in  his 
book  from  history,  because  the  history  deals  so  much 
with  the  prophet,  and  the  bringing  together  of  all 
sacred  books  into  a  single  volume  was  not  dreamed 
of  in  the  days  of  Isaiah.  In  these  historical  sections 
we  find  many  of  Isaiah's  utterances  reported.  They 
have  usually  a  genuine  ring.  They  are  worthy  of 
the  great  prophet,  and  are  fit  expressions  of  his 
power.  But  in  style  they  differ  considerably  from 
the  prophecies  in  his  book.  Though  coming  from 
the  same  lips,  they  are  the  record  of  a  different  pen. 
The  historian — not  the  compiler  of  Kings,  but  the 
original  author  whose  work  he  embodies — wrote 
Isaiah's  words  from  memory.  He  knew  in  substance 
the  great  sayings  of  Isaiah  at  these  critical  moments. 
But  the  words  of  Isaiah  are  coloured  by  passing 
through  his  mind,  so  that  while  the  thoughts  are 
clearly  Isaianic,  the  literary  form  is  not.  This  differ- 
ence is  most  naturally  explained  by  the  supposition 
that  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  as  found  in  his  book, 
are  the  product  of  his  own  hand. 

The  prophecies  bear  the  earmarks  of  oral  discourse. 
They  are  never  transformed  to  the  form  of  religious 
essays.  They  have  this  witness  to  the  fidelity  of  their 
reproduction.  They  are  invariably  in  the  form  of 
direct  address.  This  fact  of  itself  means  little,  for 
many  histories  contain  manufactured  speeches  given 
in  the  form  of  direct  address.  In  Samuel  and  Kings 
the  prophets  are  usually  quoted  in  direct  address. 
But  there  is  a  great  difference  between  the  invented 
and  the  genuine.     In  reading  a  prophecy  we  feel  the 


WRITINGS   OF   THE    PROPHETS      157 

audience  present.  Either  the  authors  were  literary 
artists  of  the  highest  order,  or  the  words  are  a  faithful 
reproduction  of  a  message  from  the  prophet's  lips. 
They  bear  the  mark  of  the  former  so  plainly  that  we 
can  easily  believe,  on  this  ground  alone,  that  they 
were  not  written  out  in  advance  of  delivery.  They 
often  bear  the  imprint  of  the  circumstances  of  their 
delivery.  By  their  own  hand,  or  by  the  office  of  a 
scribe,  shortly  after  delivery  in  some  cases,  long  after 
in  others,  the  messages  of  the  prophets  were  put  in 
written  form. 

The  purpose  so  clearly  stated  by  Jeremiah,  as 
quoted  above,  is  the  purpose  of  God,  and  it  does 
not  vary  in  different  cases.  The  written  word  was 
to  serve  the  same  purpose  as  the  oral  word.  When 
writing  was  once  in  vogue,  the  prophet  could  enlarge 
his  ministry  by  the  use  of  the  pen.  A  prophet  of 
the  Christian  dispensation  began  to  write  with  the 
same  object,  though  his  writing  was  not  intended  as 
a  reproduction  of  his  speeches.  St.  Paul  was  a  rest- 
less traveller ;  as  soon  as  a  fair  foundation  was  laid 
in  one  place,  he  was  eager  to  carry  the  Gospel  to  a 
new  field.  But  there  were  quick  departures  from  his 
standard.  He  could  not  always  be  going  back  to 
correct  and  confirm.  But  he  could  write,  and  the 
wonderful  collection  of  his  Epistles  bears  witness  to 
St.  Paul's  desire  to  extend  the  area  of  his  apostleship 
as  widely  as  possible. 

Occasionally  the  purpose  of  writing  pointed  to  the 
future,  though  generally  the  prophet  was  concerned 
with  the  pressing  needs  of  the  hour.  The  wonderful 
timeliness  of  his  utterances  is  one  of  the  most  marked 


158  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

traits  of  the  Hebrew  prophet.  But  his  outlook  was, 
nevertheless,  broad ;  in  fact,  his  farsightedness  was 
a  great  source  of  power  for  his  work  of  the  moment. 
He  can  best  prescribe  the  duty  for  to-day  who  knows 
what  to-morrow  will  be.  No  statesman  can  be  truly 
great  who  does  not  see  the  inevitable  issue  of  present 
conditions  and  handle  them  with  reference  to  the 
future.  There  were  times  when  the  prophets  seemed 
ready  to  drop  consideration  of  the  hopeless  present, 
buried  in  gloom,  and  to  turn  their  eyes  to  the  glorious 
future  in  which  they  steadfastly  believed,  and  in 
which  every  child  of  God  must  believe.  Sometimes 
their  writing  had  reference  to  that  remote  future. 

Jeremiah  wrote  his  glowing  picture  of  the  future^ 
in  the  tenth  year  of  Zedekiah,  587  B.C.  He  was  at 
the  time  a  prisoner  in  the  court  of  the  guard  :  ^  it 
was  the  darkest  period  of  Hebrew  history;  for  the 
fall  of  the  holy  city  was  so  certain  and  so  near  that 
the  prophet  ceases  to  regard  it,  and  looks  beyond  to 
a  new  day.  Jeremiah  was  commanded  to  write  in  a 
book  all  the  words  that  God  had  spoken  to  him.^ 
The  words  to  be  written  were  these  fine  Messianic 
chapters  which  had  come  from  this  time  of  national 
anguish.  The  purpose  of  reducing  to  writing  is 
clearly  stated  :  "  For  lo,  the  days  are  coming,  saith 
Jahveh,  when  I  will  bring  back  the  captivity  of  My 
people  Israel  and  Judah ;  and  I  will  restore  them  to 
the  land  which  I  gave  to  their  fathers."  *  The  written 
words  were  to  be  preserved  and  read  as  an  evi- 
dence of  God's  gracious  purpose  to  restore  the  nation, 

'  Jer.  xxx.-xxxiii.  ^  Jer.  xxxii.  2. 

"  Jer.  xxx.  2.  ■*  Jer.  xxx.  3. 


WRITINGS   OF   THE   PROPHETS      159 

which  was  now  speeding  to  destruction.  Through 
the  dark  days  of  exile  and  humiliation  the  bright 
words  of  the  prophet  would  serve  to  cheer  the  spirits 
of  the  depressed,  and  bid  them  look  hopefully  for 
better  times. 

Habakkuk  also  was  commanded  to  take  up  the 
pen  :  "  Write  the  vision  and  engrave  it  upon  tablets, 
that  he  may  run  who  reads  it ;  for  the  vision  is  for  a 
set  time,  and  it  hastens  to  the  end ;  and  it  shall  not 
lie."  ^  The  reason  seems  to  be  similar  to  Jeremiah's. 
The  condition  described  by  the  prophet,  the  over- 
throw of  the  wicked  power  of  Babylon,  was  near, 
but  not  present.  Yet  it  would  surely  come,  and  the 
prediction  of  its  coming  was  to  console  the  people 
suffering  in  the  interim. 

Isaiah  was  commanded  to  write  a  brief  prophecy 
on  a  tablet ;  it  was  this  :  maker  shalal  hash  baz, 
"  swift  the  spoil,  speedy  the  prey."  ^  The  words  were 
a  prediction  of  the  overthrow  of  the  combined  powers 
of  Damascus  and  Samaria,  before  which  Judah  was 
quailing,  and  the  fear  of  which  drove  Ahaz  to  the 
disastrous  alliance  with  Assyria.  Isaiah  seems  to 
have  set  up  the  tablet  in  the  presence  of  witnesses, 
as  a  testimony  for  the  future  day,  when  the  develop- 
ment of  time  should  establish  the  truth  of  his  words. 
So  Isaiah  wrote  for  the  future  to  prove  the  useless- 
ness  of  the  reliance  upon  Egypt.  The  command  to 
him  was,  "  Now  go,  write  it  upon  a  tablet  before 
them,  and  upon  a  book  inscribe  it,  that  it  may  be  for 
a  future  day,  for  a  witness  for  ever."  ^ 

Our  conclusions,  then,  about  the  writing  prophets 

^  Hab.  ii.  2  f .  -  Isa.  viii.  3.  '  Isa.  xxx.  8. 


i6o  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

agree  with  what  we  should  on  general  principles  deem 
most  probable.  These  prophets  wrote  or  dictated 
their  own  prophecies  sometimes  shortly  after  delivery, 
sometimes  long  after.^  They  are  not  verbatim  reports 
of  speeches  as  delivered,  but  are  sometimes  modified 
to  suit  the  purpose  of  their  issue  in  written  form. 
These  conclusions  will  fit  the  case  of  many  of  the 
prophecies  preserved  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  They 
may  not  apply  to  all  cases.  Sometimes  there  seems 
to  be  a  condition  best  explained  by  supposing  that 
a  prophecy  has  been  either  recorded  from  the  un- 
certain memory  of  one  who  heard  it,  or  revised  by  a 
less  skilful  and  faithful  hand  than  the  author.  A 
critical  discrimination  is  always  essential  in  our  study. 
But  we  are  safe  in  assuming  that  the  genuine  pro- 
ductions of  the  writing  prophets  are  peculiarly  trust- 
worthy as  sources  of  information  for  our  use.  In 
turning  to  them  we  are  dealing  with  authorities  of 
the  highest  order. 

'  See  additional  note  (9). 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   PROPHET'S   RELATION   TO   THE 
STATE 

I.   BEFORE   AMOS 

THE  civil  ruler  among  the  ancient  Semites  was 
in  many  respects  a  despot  of  the  most  arbitrary 
kind.  His  rule  was  based  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Divine  right  of  kings,  and  he  at  least  was  convinced 
that  the  king  could  do  no  wrong.  Nevertheless  his 
practice  was  considerably  influenced  by  the  fact  that 
he  was  intensely  religious,  even  though  his  religion 
may  seem  to  us,  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  kings, 
of  the  grossest  type.  Believing  in  the  gods,  he  felt 
that  success  in  his  career  depended  upon  their  good 
pleasure.  Hence  he  strove  always  to  keep  in  favour 
with  them,  so  that  every  enterprise  might  be  under- 
taken under  their  favourable  auspices.  To  that  end 
it  was  necessary  to  know  the  mind  of  the  gods,  for 
that  information  was  equivalent  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  ways  of  success  and  failure. 

There  were  many  means  employed  to  determine 
the  will  of  the  gods :  dreams,  divination,  magic, 
soothsaying,  sorcery,  witchcraft,  all  had  their  place. 
Among  many  of  the  ancient  Semitic  peoples  the 
method  of  ascertaining  the  Divine  will  never  rose 

M  l6i 


i62  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

above  divination.  In  the  sixth  century  before  Christ, 
Nebuchadrezzar  still  decides  by  arrows  and  the 
convulsions  of  the  slain  animal's  liver,  whether  the 
gods  would  have  him  take  the  road  to  Rabbah  or 
Jerusalem.^ 

Among  the  Hebrews  all  the  primitive  methods 
were  in  use  at  various  periods.  Jonathan  decided  to 
attack  the  Philistine  garrison  because,  according  to 
his  prearranged  sign,  they  said,  "  Come  up  to  us," 
instead  of  "  Tarry  until  we  come  to  you."  ^  Shortly 
afterwards  Saul,  desiring  to  know  whether  it  was 
a  favourable  time  to  attack,  summoned  the  priest  to 
divine  with  the  ephod.^  In  the  same  way  David 
learned,  first,  that  he  should  attack  the  Philistines 
who  were  besieging  Keilah,  and  later,  that  he 
must  abandon  Keilah  to  escape  treachery.^  In 
his  great  distress,  when  he  was  hard  pressed  by  the 
Philistines,  Saul  failed  to  get  a  satisfactory  answer 

^  Ezek.  xxi.  i8  ff.  See  also  art.  "Soothsayer,"  by  Whitehouse,  in 
Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary. 

"^  I  Sam.  xiv.  9  f. 

^  I  Sam.  xiv.  i8ff.  The  Hebrew  text  reads,  "bring  hither  the  ark 
of  God."  The  best  Greek  versions  read,  "bring  hither  the  ephod." 
There  seems  to  be  no  question  but  that  the  latter  is  right.  The  ark 
was  not  used  for  divination,  the  ephod  was.  Ahijah  was  present  in  the 
camp  of  Saul  "wearing  an  ephod"  (i  Sam.  xiv.  3).  Later  on  David 
used  the  same  words  to  Abiathar,  "bring  hither  the  ephod"  (ib. 
xxiii.  9 ;  cf.  also  xxx.  7,  and  Driver's  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  text  of 
Samuel,  p.  83  f.).  The  change  in  the  Hebrew  text  was  accidental ; 
the  words  for  ark  and  ephod  are  much  alike  ;  after  this  error  came  in, 
"of  God "  was  added  as  a  necessary  explanation. 

*  I  Sam.  xxiii.  This  instance  is  particularly  instructive  because  we 
find  a  detailed  conversation  between  David  and  Jahveh,  but  conducted 
through  the  ephod.  David  asked  his  questions,  and  the  oracular  yes  or 
no  was  given  in  reply.  The  true  explanation  of  the  earlier  part  of  the 
story  (vers.  1-5),  where  the  ephod  is  not  mentioned,  is  thus  supplied. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         163 

from  any  other  source,  and  so  resorted  to  necro- 
mancy.^ 

But  the  Hebrews  did  not  always  depend  upon  the 
dark  arts  for  determining  the  moment  which  was 
auspicious  by  the  favour  of  God.  Comparatively 
early  in  their  career  they  learned  a  better  and  higher 
way.  The  counsel  of  God  came  to  them,  not  through 
the  uncertainties  of  dreams  and  divination,  but 
through  the  voice  of  the  living  prophets.  Thus  the 
Hebrew  prophet  in  his  relation  to  the  State  was 
accorded  a  position  of  tremendous  power,  and  was 
given  a  chance  for  the  religious  enlightenment  of  the 
people.  The  attitude  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  following 
the  falling  of  the  arrows  and  the  movements  of  a 
liver,  is  not  unlike  that  of  David  moving  to  the 
attack  at  the  rustling  of  the  mulberry  trees ;  but  it 
is  very  different  from  Hezekiah,  stoutly  resisting  the 
assaults  of  Sennacherib  under  the  influence  of  the 
confident  cry  of  a  great  prophet :  "  The  virgin 
daughter  of  Zion  hath  despised  thee,  and  laughed 
thee  to  scorn ;  the  daughter  of  Jerusalem  hath  shaken 
her  head  at  thee."- 

At  first  the  man  was  nothing  apart  from  his 
apparatus.  Abiathar  the  priest  would  have  been 
little  esteemed  by  David  without  the  sacred  ephod. 
Moses  could  do  nothing  without  his  divining  rod. 
The  early  seers  may  have  used  some  similar  primitive 
methods  of  learning  the  will  of  God.  Samuel  the 
seer  may  have  determined  that  the  asses  were  found 

^  I   Sam.   xxviii.     An  unusual  procedure,   but  not  unknown  at  a 
much  later  age,  as  we  learn  from  Isa.  viii.  19. 
^  Isa.  xxxvii.  22. 


i64  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

by  the  art  of  soothsaying.^  But  in  the  development 
of  prophecy  the  man  came  into  direct  communion 
with  God,  and  all  apparatus  was  laid  aside.  ^  With 
the  appearance  of  great  men,  the  belief  grew  among 
the  people  that  Jahveh  spoke  directly  to  His  prophets.^ 
The  Hebrew  kings  and  counsellors  might,  if  they 
would,  have  a  more  certain  assurance  that  they  were 
walking  in  the  way  of  God  than  the  dark  arts  per- 
mitted. When  the  kings  looked  to  the  seers  for 
guidance  from  on  high,  these  became  inevitably  great 
figures  in  the  State.  To  fill  his  place  the  prophet 
must  be  not  only  a  man  of  God,  but  a  statesman  as 
well.  For  he  was  no  blind  medium,  but  an  intelli- 
gent transmitter  of  the  Divine  counsel.  He  was  a 
man  of  his  times,  looking  about  him  with  clear  sight, 
knowing  not  only  the  political  movements  of  his  day, 
but  their  significance  for  the  time  and  for  the  future. 
So  it  happened  that  the  prophet  cannot  be  under- 
stood apart  from  his  connexion  with  the  State.*    We 

^  The  use  of  apparatus  would  be  maintained  after  it  had  ceased  to 
be  a  guide  to  the  seer,  because  of  its  impressive  effect  upon  the  people. 
Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  had  learned  as  well  where  to  look  for  a  com- 
memoration tablet  in  a  Babylonian  building  as  we  should  for  a  corner- 
stone. Excavating  at  Birs,  he  reached  the  point  where  he  expected 
the  cylinder.  Before  removing  the  last  bricks  he  adjusted  a  prismatic 
compass  on  the  wall,  then  removed  the  brick  and  picked  out  the 
cylinder.  The  Arabs  thought  the  compass  a  wonderful  instrument, 
and  attributed  the  find  to  magic.  (See  Hilprecht,  Explorations  in 
Bible  Lattds,  p.  183  f.) 

"^  The  use  of  symbols,  such  as  Jeremiah's  yoke,  was  a  survival  of  the 
old  customs.  ^  Amos  iii.  7. 

*  "  From  the  days  of  Samuel  onwards  we  find  the  prophets  standing 
in  the  closest  relations  to  the  political  circumstances  of  their  times.  .  .  . 
They  made  it  their  business  to  watch  the  course  of  national  affairs  in 
general,  and  specially  to  control  and  judge  the  conduct  of  the  reigning 
monarch  and  his  counsellors"  (Ottley,  Bamp.  Led.,  p.  279). 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         165 

shall  trace  that  relation  in  its  historical  development. 
To  this  end  we  must  go  back  to  the  early  days  and 
review  the  history  of  prophecy  from  the  political 
point  of  view.  We  shall  thus  see  how  the  early  seer 
worked  for  the  State's  welfare  ;  confessedly,  though, 
our  information  is  at  times  pretty  scanty. 

Ehud,  the  left-handed  Benjamite,  was  not  a  prophet, 
but  a  shrewd  warrior,  such  as  the  times  called  for 
when  his  tribe  was  oppressed  by  Eglon,  the  king  of 
Moab.  Ehud  was  delegated  to  carry  the  tribute  to 
the  suzerain,  and  resolved  to  make  use  of  the  oppor- 
tunity to  rid  his  people  of  the  tyrant.  It  was  easy 
to  get  a  private  audience  with  the  king  by  pretend- 
ing that  he  had  a  secret  message,  for  mankind  ever 
loves  a  secret.  But  as  he  desired  the  fat  king  to 
stand,  that  he  might  aim  the  blow  more  effectively, 
he  accomplished  his  purpose  by  saying  that  his 
message  was  from  God.^  Though  Ehud  was  a 
foreigner  from  the  Moabite's  point  of  view,  his  pre- 
tension to  have  a  message  from  God  to  deliver 
sufficed  to  gain  the  attention  of  the  king,  and  to 
bring  him  to  his  feet.  This  incident  shows  the 
esteem  in  which  any  man  was  held  who  claimed  to 
have  a  message  from  heaven.  Ehud  the  Hebrew 
was  able  positively  to  count  upon  the  Moabite  king's 
welcome  to  one  assuming  to  bear  a  Divine  com- 
mission. 

The  tolerance  of  kings  towards  prophets  has  often 
been  noted.  A  raving  dervish  may  gain  admission 
to  a  despotic  Oriental  court  when  an  important  am- 
bassador would  be  debarred.     Among  the  Israelites 

*  Judges  iii.  20. 


i66  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

it  is  generally  assumed  that  the  prophet  had  a  free 
hand,  and  not  only  dared,  but  was  permitted,  a 
freedom  of  speech  which  would  have  been  quickly 
punished  in  another.  Often  his  hand  was  free. 
That  was  ever  the  ideal.  Zedekiah  is  charged  with 
great  wrong  because  he  did  not  humble  himself  be- 
fore Jeremiah.^  But  it  is  easy  to  exaggerate  this 
tolerance ;  for  conditions  varied  greatly  at  different 
times.  There  are  many  cases  showing  the  clearest 
intolerance  towards  the  prophets.  The  king  of 
Israel  lent  his  aid  to  the  priest  in  an  effort  to  dismiss 
from  the  kingdom  the  first  of  the  literary  prophets. 
There  is  a  long  story  of  repression  and  persecution, 
which  shows  that  the  prophet  who  opposed  the  royal 
policy  did  so  at  the  risk  of  liberty  and  life.  The 
details  of  this  story  will  be  brought  out  in  the  course 
of  our  study. 

Among  the  very  earliest  writings  preserved  by  the 
Hebrews  is  the  Song  of  Deborah.^  This  ancient 
poem  affords  a  striking  picture  of  the  prophetic 
influence  in  early  Israel.  The  northern  tribes  had 
been  sorely  beset  by  Sisera,  and  there  was  no  one  to 
gather  an  effective  force  in  opposition  until  Deborah 
arose  a  mother  in  Israel,  and  inspired  Barak  to  rally 
the  people  and  lead  them  in  a  fierce  assault  against 
the  foe.  The  prophetess  did  not  wait  for  someone 
to  seek  her  counsel,  but,  acting  under  a  Divine  im- 
pulse of  patriotism,  herself  took  the  initial  steps 
which  led  to  the  expulsion  of  the  enemy. 

That  position  of  leadership  was  ever  maintained 
by  the  prophets.     They  were  never  passive  instru- 

^  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  12.  ^  Judges  v. 


RELATION    TO   THE   STATE         167 

ments  of  divination  to  say  yes  or  no,  when  the 
springs  were  touched  by  an  inquiring  hand,  but  were 
active  in  arousing  the  people  to  their  God-given 
opportunities.  Thus  the  great  seer  of  Ephraim  is 
introduced  to  us  in  the  oldest  story  of  the  establish- 
ment of  the  kingdom.^  Samuel  sees  the  disadvant- 
age of  Israel  in  their  tribal  jealousy  and  disorgan- 
isation.2  The  time  has  gone  by  when  heroic  leaders 
may  be  expected  as  occasion  requires.  The  people 
had  seen  enough  of  the  evil  of  a  state  of  anarchy 
to  enable  Samuel  to  count  upon  their  acceptance  of 
the  new  institution  if  it  is  presented  to  them  at  a 
fitting  moment.  The  young  giant  who  comes  to  the 
seer  to  inquire  about  the  strayed  asses  has  all  the 
marks  of  the  kind  of  leader  the  people  of  that  age 
would  be  likely  to  follow  ;  and  therefore  upon  the 
head  of  the  son  of  Kish  the  anointing  oil  is  poured. 
If  Samuel  had  occupied  the  commanding  position 
ascribed  to  him  in  the  later  narratives  of  the  Book 
of  Samuel,  nothing  more  than  this  anointing  would 
have  been  necessary  to  have  finally  established  the 
kingdom.  But  as  Samuel  appears  to  have  been  at 
all  events  at  the  start  a  seer  of  Ephraim,  with  little 
more  than  local  repute,^  the  pouring  of  oil  upon  a 
man's  head  would  command  little  heed  from  the 
people  at  large.     Therefore  Saul  must  demonstrate 

^   I  Sam.  ix. 

'  This  is  a  vastly  more  probable  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the 
kingdom  than  the  other  version  of  the  story  (i  Sam.  viii.,  xii.),  ac- 
cording to  which  Samuel  grudgingly  yielded  to  a  popular  demand. 

2  Whatever  may  be  the  fact  in  regard  to  Samuel's  position,  the 
above  is  assuredly  the  view  of  the  writer  of  the  early  story  of  the 
founding  of  the  kingdom. 


i68  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

his  leadership  by  watching  his  opportunity,  by  follow- 
ing the  seer's  counsel  to  "do  as  occasion  shall  serve."  ^ 
The  prophet's  part  was  to  make  choice  of  a  fit  person 
to  serve  in  the  high  office  of  king ;  the  king's  part 
was  to  demonstrate  the  fitness  of  that  choice  when 
the  occasion  arose.  The  seer  wisely  contents  himself 
with  a  general  direction ;  Saul  finds  the  opportunity 
himself  when  he  hears  of  the  dire  stress  of  Jabesh- 
gilead.  It  is  often  erroneously  assumed,  on  the  basis 
of  the  later  stories,  that  Samuel  was  the  real 
authority  in  the  kingdom,  and  Saul  but  a  figure-head 
carrying  out  his  instructions.  This  conception  is 
far  from  the  truth ;  for  later  we  read  that  Jonathan, 
of  his  own  initiative,  determined  by  signs,  and  Saul 
by  the  ephod,  when  to  attack  the  enemy.  Samuel 
as  a  matter  of  fact  occupied  an  inconspicuous  posi- 
tion in  the  monarchy  which  he  had  inspired. 

According  to  the  Book  of  Samuel,  the  prophet  not 
only  set  up  a  king,  but  he  also  put  him  down,  when 
his  services  were  not  deemed  sufficiently  pleasing  to 
Jahveh.  The  critical  problems  in  these  sources  are 
pretty  difficult.  But  they  must  be  faced.  Between 
those  who  reject  everything  except  the  oldest  narra- 
tive and  those  who  accept  the  whole  as  equally 
authoritative  in  all  parts,  smoothing  out  the  incon- 
sistencies with  greater  skill  than  success,  there  may 
not  be  much  choice.  The  practice  of  considering 
every  statement  impossible,  because  found  in  a  late 
source,  is  reprehensible ;  that  of  accepting  every 
statement  because  it  is  found  in  Holy  Scripture  is 
impossible.     Every  statement  ought  to  be  judged  on 

^   I  Sam.  X.  7. 


RELATION    TO   THE   STATE         169 

its  own  merits.  It  seems  scarcely  likely,  however, 
that  Saul  was  deposed  from  the  throne  for  offering 
a  sacrifice  before  the  priest-prophet  appeared  ;  ^  and 
this  story  is  inconsistent  with  another  ground  for 
Saul's  rejection,  namely,  his  failure  to  exterminate 
the  Amalekites.2  The  latter  story  is  much  more  in 
accord  with  the  ideas  of  the  times,  and  probably 
gives  the  real  cause  of   Samuel's  disaffection.^ 

What  part  Samuel  had  in  the  revolution  by  which 
David  reached  the  throne,  it  is  not  easy  to  say.  The 
information  is  not  always  consistent,  and  the  most 
specific  is  the  latest  and  least  trustworthy.*  But  it 
is  highly  probable  that  there  is  this  much  of  historic 
truth  back  of  these  stories,  that  David  was  prompted 
by  the  seer  of  Ephraim  to  overthrow  the  house  of 
Saul,  and  to  set  up  his  own  dynasty  in  its  place. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  all  the  later  sources 
of  the  Book  of  Samuel,  the  place  of  the  prophet  is 
much  more  conspicuous  than  in  the  early  sources. 
Looked  at  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  later  times, 
it  was  inconceivable  that  Samuel  had  been  other  than 
the  power  behind  the  throne  directing  the  king  in  all 
his  ways.  We  find  the  same  tendency  in  the  history 
of  David's  reign.  In  the  latest  source  the  power  of 
the  prophet  appears  to  be  greatest.  The  story  of  the 
king's  consultation  with  Nathan  about  the  building 
of  the  temple  is  one  of  the  latest  additions  to  the 
narrative.^     The  most   despotic  king,  according  to 

^  I  Sam.  xiii.  8  ft".         -  i  Sam.  xv.  ^  See  additional  note  (lo). 

*  I.e.  I  Sam.  xvi.  I-13.  Budde  has  so  poor  an  opinion  of  this  section 
that  he  regards  it  as  a  midrash,  taken  from  the  same  source  quoted  by 
the  Chronicler  {Biicher  Samuel,  p.  114). 

'•'  2  Sam.  vii 


I/O  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

that  story,  dare  not  carry  out  a  project  long  cherished 
in  his  heart  without  the  sanction  of  the  prophet.  If 
we  question  this  story  we  must  do  so,  however,  not 
merely  on  the  ground  of  lateness  of  source,  but 
chiefly  upon  the  improbability  that  a  man  like  David 
would  brook  such  interference. 

David  seems  to  have  had  little  to  do  with  the 
prophets.  According  to  the  oldest  sources,  his  in- 
quiries of  God  were  apparently  made  through  the 
priest  and  ephod,  which  had  served  him  so  well  in 
the  days  of  his  conflict  with  Saul.^  In  the  list  of 
his  officers  2  we  find  two  priests,  but  no  prophet. 
When  the  king  was  obliged  to  flee  on  account  of 
Absalom's  rebellion,  Zadok  the  priest  was  with  him, 
but  there  is  no  mention  of  a  prophet.  Hushai  the 
councillor  was  relied  upon  for  advice,  and  was 
deliberately  counselled  to  aid  the  fugitive  king  by 
deceiving  the  usurper.  According  to  Chronicles, 
when  the  elders  of  Israel  came  to  Hebron  to  make 
David  king,  they  acted  "according  to  the  word  of 
Jahveh  by  the  hand  of  Samuel  ";3  but  that  assertion 
sounds  like  a  harmonistic  effort  of  the  Chronicler. 
It  is  in  agreement  with  the  later  conceptions. 

Still  we  find  even  in  these  oldest  sources  that  the 
prophets  do  sometimes  appear  on  the  scene  and 
speak  with  the  utmost  freedom,  even  though  their 
mission  was  to  rebuke  a  king.  Nathan's  severe 
censure  of  David  for  the  high-handed  crimes  by  which 
Bath-sheba  became  his  wife,  reveals  an  early  picture 
of  the  true  prophet's   high  courage,  and   his  solid 

^  2  Sam.  ii.  I  ;  v,  19  ;  xxi.  i.  ^2  Sam.  viii.  16-18. 

^  I  Chron.  xi.  3. 


RELATION    TO   THE   STATE  171 

moral  principles.  That  the  State  may  be  strong,  it 
must  be  pure.  A  dissolute,  unscrupulous  monarch 
is  intolerable  to  Jahveh,  and  the  prophet,  full  of  the 
spirit  of  Jahveh,  cannot  hesitate  to  lay  bare  the  king's 
sins,  and  to  declare  the  punishment  which  will  inevit- 
ably follow.^ 

Another  prophet,  who  is  called  a  royal  seer,  was  the 
divinely  appointed  means  of  conveying  to  the  king 
the  choice  of  punishments  offered  him  in  expiation  of 
his  sin  in  taking  a  census.^  This  story  is  not  free 
from  difficulty  for  the  interpreter.  But  we  may  easily 
separate  it  into  certain  historic  facts  on  the  one  side, 
and  the  theological  interpretation  of  those  facts  on 
the  other.  The  facts  seem  to  be  that  for  military 
purposes  David  ordered  a  census  of  the  whole  people  ; 
and  that  this  census  was  followed  by  a  dreadful 
pestilence.  In  accordance  with  the  ideas  of  the  times, 
the  pestilence  could  only  be  explained  as  a  punish- 
ment for  sin,  as  indeed  all  pestilences  are,  though  un- 
happily the  right  sin  is  not  always  discovered.  But 
the  writer  of  this  old  story  makes  the  prophet  Gad 
the  messenger  to  the  offending  king,  and  the  agent 
by  whose  advice  the  stay  of  the  plague  is  accom- 
plished. 

^  H.  P.  Smith  is  doubtful  about  this  narrative.  "There  is  nothing 
unreasonable  in  supposing  that  the  early  narrative  was  content  with 
pointing  out  that  the  anger  of  Jahveh  was  evidenced  by  the  death  of  the 
child.  A  later  writer  was  not  satisfied  with  this,  but  felt  that  there 
must  be  a  specific  rebuke  by  a  direct  revelation  "  {Sam.,  p.  322).  The 
question  is  whether  there  is  anything  unreasonable  in  the  narrative  as 
it  stands.  That  there  may  be  some  later  embellishments  in  the  story  is 
possible ;  that  a  whole  section  has  been  added  from  an  untrustworthy 
source  is  not  very  likely. 

^  2  Sam.  xxiv. 


172  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

It  would  be  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  these 
two  notices  tell  us  the  whole  history  of  prophecy  in 
relation  to  the  reign  of  David.  They  are  rather  to  be 
regarded  as  evidence  that,  apart  from  the  sons  of  the 
prophets  as  bodies,  there  were  conspicuous  individual 
prophets,  who  watched  the  course  of  "  the  king  after 
God's  own  heart,"  and  though  not  called  in  counsel 
in  affairs  of  state,  were  yet  quick  to  appear  of  their 
own  motion,  when  they  perceived  the  king  to  be  fall- 
ing from  the  ways  of  their  God. 

If  we  look  over  such  history  as  we  have  of  the  op- 
pressive reign  of  Solomon  the  great,  we  are  struck  at 
once  with  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  prophets. 
In  the  list  of  his  officers ^  we  find  priests,  but  neither 
seer  nor  prophet.  There  is  no  record  of  Solomon's 
ever  consulting  a  seer,  or  being  sharply  called  to  ac- 
count by  a  prophet.  In  fact,  Solomon  was  not  a  man 
to  take  censure  from  anybody.  All  the  knowledge 
we  have  of  him  points  to  a  man  of  self-sufficiency. 
Wisdom  came  to  him  directly  from  God,  so  it  was 
believed,  and  he  felt  no  dependence  upon  a  mediating 
officer. 

At  the  same  time  Solomon  could  not  have  for- 
gotten that  he  owed  his  office  to  the  shrewdness  of  a 
prophet.  Nathan  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to 
penetrate  the  treacherous  purposes  of  Adonijah,  and 
the  first  to  suggest  a  means  to  counteract  the  effects 
of  David's  inactivity  and  rapidly  waning  popularity. 
The  prophet  was  concerned  to  secure  the  succession 
of  the  heir-apparent  as  determined  by  royal  authority. 
Yet  the  actual  anointing  was  done  by  Zadok  the 
I  Kings  iv,  ff. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE  173 

priest,  not  by  Nathan  the  prophet.  ^  It  is  highly 
probable  that  Nathan  lived  through  a  part  of  Solo- 
mon's reign,  but  he  could  have  had  no  conspicuous 
place  in  the  royal  councils. 

There  is  good  indirect  evidence  that  Solomon  did 
not  look  kindly  upon  prophetic  meddling  with  his 
great  affairs  ;  this  we  find  in  the  history  of  Ahijah  the 
Shilonite.     Ahijah  saw  the  evil  consequences  of  an 
attempt,  such  as  Solomon  had  made,  to  maintain  a 
splendid   Oriental  court   in    a   nation   as  small  and 
poor  as  Israel.     In  the  heir-apparent  the  seer  could    \ 
perceive  no  signs  of  improvement.     The  only  course,    1 
therefore,  was  a  revolt  and  a  secession  of  the  northern    ' 
tribes  from  the  united  kingdom,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  a  royal  line  of  their  own.     This  dangerous 
business   was  executed  in  the  wild  mountain  land,^ 
where  the  seer  would  not  be  under  the  observation  of 
royal  spies. 

It  was  a  prophet,  therefore,  who  inspired  the  greatest 
rebellion  in  Hebrew  history.  The  part  of  the  prophet  \ 
in  such  movements  was  to  pick  out  the  man  for  the 
occasion,  and  to  set  him  at  the  arduous  and  perilous 
work  of  revolution.  While  Solomon  lived,  the  prophet 
dare  not  interfere  with  the  evils  which  he  deprecated, 
nor  did  he  venture  to  stir  up  revolt.  Under  the  feebler 
rule  of  Solomon's  son,  revolution  became  possible. 

*  So  we  are  expressly  told  in  i  Kings  i.  39.  David  commands 
Zadok  and  Nathan  to  anoint  Solomon  king  (ver,  34),  and  Jonathan 
reported  to  the  conspirators  that  Zadok  and  Nathan  had  anointed  him 
(ver.  45).  Nathan  may  have  had  some  part  in  the  function,  but 
Zadok  was  evidently  the  chief. 

■^  I  Kings  xi.  29.  The  rendering  of  the  English  versions,  "field," 
conveys  quite  a  wrong  impression. 


174  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Another  prophet  played  an  important  role  in  this 
revolution.  Rehoboam  was  as  conceited  as  arrogant, 
and  vainly  supposed  that  he  could  bring  back  his 
revolted  subjects  by  force  of  arms.  A  protracted 
attempt  to  do  so  would  have  resulted  in  great  loss 
of  property  and  life,  and  probably  in  the  entire 
destruction  of  the  Davidic  kingdom.  Rehoboam 
gathered  a  great  army,  but  was  halted  in  his  purpose 
by  Shemaiah,  the  man  of  God,  who  persuaded  the 
king  that  the  division  of  the  kingdom  was  of  God.^ 
It  would  have  been  useless  to  try  to  stay  the  king's 
hand  by  predicting  failure;  but  the  plea  that  the 
rebellion  he  purposed  to  suppress  was  of  Divine  order- 
ing proved  effective. 

How  exactly  reversed  are  conditions  now !  A 
government  will  be  very  much  influenced  by  prob- 
abilities of  success  or  failure,  but  very  little  effort  will 
be  made  to  learn  the  will  of  God.  It  may  indeed  be 
urged  that  we  have  no  longer  a  prophet  to  announce 
authoritatively,  "  thus  saith  the  Lord."  But  we  have 
a  surer  means  than  an  Ahijah  or  a  Shemaiah  had  for 
determining  the  will  of  God.  For  the  party  which  is 
in  the  right  is  that  which  God  looks  upon  with  favour, 
and  not  the  party  with  the  heaviest  battalions ;  though 

^  I  Kings  xii.  21  ff.  Kittel  says  this  narrative  is  a  later  addition, 
and  sounds  like  a  friendly  excuse  for  Rehoboam's  inaction  and  in- 
difference {Hist.,  ii.  211,  246).  He  regards  it  as  a  post-exilic  midrash 
after  the  manner  of  the  Chronicler  {Kdntgsbucker,  106).  It  is  true  that 
Rehoboam  kept  up  a  sort  of  border  war  for  a  long  time  ;  it  is  so  ex- 
pressly stated  in  i  Kings  xiv.  30 ;  but  it  may  be  that  this  passage, 
however  late,  contains  a  bit  of  true  history,  namely,  that  the  king  re- 
frained from  a  great  war  by  prophetic  advice.  The  border  war  he 
could  not  control,  even  if  he  had  cared  to  stop  it. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE  175 

it  is  unhappily  not  always  the  case  in  war  that  right 
makes  might. 

Whatever  Shemaiah's  position  at  court  was,  he 
evidently  wielded  a  great  influence  in  the  affairs 
of  state.  It  was  no  light  task  to  turn  back  a  king 
when  his  forces  were  already  mustered  for  war.  The 
prophet  appears  once  again  in  the  character  of  a 
state  counsellor,  though  in  a  matter  more  distinctly 
religious.  In  the  fifth  year  of  Rehoboam's  reign 
Judah  was  invaded  by  Shishak,  the  king  of  Egypt. 
To  the  king  and  princes  wondering  at  the  havoc 
wrought  in  Jahveh's  land,  the  prophet  gives  the  easy 
explanation :  "  Thus  saith  Jahveh :  you  have  aban- 
doned Me,  and  therefore  have  I  abandoned  you  in 
the  hand  of  Shishak."  ^ 

Again  Rehoboam  accepted  the  counsel  of  the  man 
of  God,  and  as  a  consequence  of  his  humility,  a  com- 
forting message  was  given  to  him :  "  They  have 
humbled  themselves  :  I  will  not  destroy  them,  but  I 
will  shortly  make  them  an  escaped  remnant,  and  My 
anger  shall  not  be  poured  upon  Jerusalem  by  the 
hand  of  Shishak.  Yet  they  shall  become  servants  to 
him,  that  they  may  know  My  service,  and  the  service 
of  the  kingdoms  of  the  lands."^ 

The  plain  meaning  of  this  advice  in  modern  terms 
seems  to  be  this.  The  feeble  Judean  army  had  no 
chance  against  the  vastly  superior  Egyptian  force. 

^  2  Chron.  xii.  5.  There  is  no  mention  of  Shemaiah's  appearance 
in  the  brief  story  in  i  Kings  xiv.  25  ff.  While  we  must  admit  that 
the  Chronicler's  unsupported  testimony  must  be  cautiously  scrutinised, 
it  nevertheless  seems  uncritical  to  reject  it  en  masse.  He  had  no 
especial  predilection  in  favour  of  the  prophets. 

^  2  Chron.  xii.  7  f. 


176  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

To  resist  such  a  power  meant  destruction.  The  only 
wise  course  for  the  weaker  side  was  submission  for  a 
time,  not  vain  resistance,  which  would  only  aggravate 
the  trouble.  Shemaiah,  the  man  of  God,  was  the 
one  who  saw  the  course  of  safety,  and  who  was  able 
to  pilot  the  frail  State  of  Judah  through  the  troubled 
waters. 

We  know  little  more  of  prophetic  activity  in  the 
State  for  a  long  time.  The  Chronicler  tells  us  that 
Azariah  the  son  of  Obed  tried  to  keep  Asa  in  the 
straight  path  by  reminding  him  that  Jahveh's  favour 
was  conditional  upon  good  behaviour.^  About  the 
same  time  Jehu  the  son  of  Hanani  sharply  rebuked 
Baasha,  the  third  king  of  Israel,  and  declared  that  his 
rule  would  fall  to  the  ground  because  of  the  sins  he 
had  committed.^  It  is  highly  probable^  that  this  same 
seer  played  an  active  part  in  the  overthrow  of  the 
discredited  dynasty  of  Jeroboam,  and  the  passing  of 
the  reins  to  the  powerful  hand  of  Omri. 

The  disastrous  war  between  Amaziah  of  Judah  and 
Joash  of  Israel  was  brought  about,  according  to  the 
Chronicler,  by  partly  following  and  partly  ignoring 
the  advice  of  a  prophet.  The  king  of  Judah  hired 
Israelitish  mercenaries  to  aid  him  in  a  campaign 
against  Edom.  A  man  of  God  advised  against  this 
accession  so  strongly  that  Amaziah  sent  the  Israelites 
back  as  a  consequence.  While  the  Judeans  were 
plundering  Edom,  the  returning  Israelites  seized  the 
opportunity  to  find  redress  in  looting  the  Judeans. 

^  2  Chron.  xv.  iff.  '^  i  Kings  xvi,  I  ff. 

^  Some  such  activity  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  language  of  i  Kings 
xvi.  2-7  ;  cf.  also  xv.  29,  xiv.  14. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         177 

Amaziah  was  reproved  by  the  prophets,  according  to 
the  story,  because  he  worshipped  the  captured  deities 
of  Edom  ;  but  probably  the  real  ground  of  the  rebuke 
was  the  king's  proposal  to  exact  vengeance  from 
Israel.  Then  we  come  to  a  case  of  conflict  between 
prophet  and  king.  The  king  asked  the  seer,  "  Have 
we  made  thee  of  the  king's  counsel  ? "  and  follows  his 
question  with  a  grave  threat,  "  forbear  :  why  shouldst 
thou  be  smitten?"  Though  we  are  told  that  the 
prophet  heeded  the  threat,  he  did  so  with  the  real 
spirit  of  the  prophets,  which  was  to  bid  defiance 
to  any  other  authority  than  God's  :  "  I  know  that 
God  has  determined  to  destroy  thee  because  thou 
hast  done  this,  and  hast  not  hearkened  unto  my 
counsel."  ^ 

We  must  go  back  a  little  now  to  a  time  when  the 
prophet  was  a  prominent  figure  in  the  State,  to  the 
time  of  Elijah  and  Elisha.  Conditions  at  this  period 
were  very  bad  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  prophet  of 
Jahveh.  The  dynasty  of  Omri  was  anything  but 
faithful  to  Jahveh's  ways.  The  kings  were  no  longer 
amenable  to  prophetic  counsel,  and  the  seers  were 
constrained  to  sit  constantly  on  the  opposition  bench. 
This  was  a  time,  too,  when  the  king  was  intolerant  of 
what  seemed  to  him  as  prophetic  interference  with 
affairs  of  state.  Like  others  in  civil  authority  whose 
life  is  not  above  reproach,  he  would  insist  that  the 
pulpit  keep  close  to  a  narrow  range  of  religion  and 
let  business  and  politics  alone.  In  spite  of  intoler- 
ance and  persecution,  however,  the  great  prophets 
had  their  say,  and,  like  true  watchmen,  did  not  let 

^  2  Chron.  xxv.  1-16. 


178  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Israel  rush  on  to  its  doom  without  lifting  up  their 
voice  in  warning. 

It  is  only  possible  to  state  briefly  some  of  the 
prophet's  acts,  selecting  those  which  are  most  im- 
portant for  our  subject.  While  it  is  true  that  con- 
siderable legendary  matter  has  become  imbedded  in 
the  stories  of  Elijah,  and  more  still  in  those  of  Elisha, 
there  is  yet  an  abundance  of  good  historical  material. 
This  is  particularly  the  case  in  such  parts  of  the 
stories  as  are  serviceable  for  our  present  purpose. 
Though  not  trustworthy  in  all  details,  this  narrative 
doubtless  gives  the  position  of  the  prophet  correctly. 

Elijah  comes  on  the  scene  very  abruptly  in 
I  Kings  xvii.,  declaring  to  Ahab  that  there  shall  be 
neither  dew  nor  rain  except  at  his  word.  Apparently 
the  compiler  chose  from  the  history  of  Elijah  such 
events  as  threw  most  light  on  the  history  of  Israel. 
Certain  it  seems,  doubtless  as  a  result  of  this  method 
of  selection,  that  Elijah's  chief  concern  is  the  State. 
The  welfare  of  the  State  in  the  mind  of  the  prophet 
depended  upon  its  faithfulness  to  Jahveh.  Con- 
sequently the  prophet,  fired  with  a  religious  zeal 
rarely  excelled  in  history,  gave  his  life  so  far  as  we 
know  to  an  effort  to  stay  the  evil  tendency  towards 
the  introduction  of  a  religion  foreign  to  that  upon 
which  the  Hebrew  nation  was  founded,  and  vastly 
inferior  as  a  moral  power. 

The  prophet's  declaration  that  there  would  be 
neither  dew  nor  rain  except  at  his  word  did  not  arise 
from  a  mere  arbitrary  desire  to  display  power  or  to 
inflict  suffering,  but  was  the  initial  step  in  his  pro- 
gramme to  awaken  the  people  to  a  sense  of  their 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         179 

infidelity.  When  the  king  and  people,  feeling  the 
heavy  hand  of  God,  humbled  themselves  penitently, 
then  the  dew  and  rain  would  fall  again  as  a  token  of 
Jahveh's  gracious  forgiveness. 

The  result  was  quite  contrary  to  the  prophet's 
purpose  and  hope.  Jezebel  had  perhaps  already 
been  striving  to  make  Baal  the  national  God.  She 
was  as  shrewd  as  she  was  unscrupulous,  and  saw  her 
opportunity  in  the  drought  which  followed  Elijah's 
prediction.  She  could  easily  persuade  the  man  who 
had  quite  yielded  to  her  dominating  influence,  that 
the  way  to  break  the  drought  was  to  break  the  man 
who  was  responsible  for  it,  and  along  with  him  the 
whole  body  of  his  followers.  Consequently  we  find 
Elijah  in  hiding  and  the  king  doing  everything  in  his 
power  to  find  him  ;  while  the  king's  officer  Obadiah 
had  concealed  some  of  the  persecuted  prophets,  and 
was  secretly  maintaining  them  in  a  cave.  There 
were  probably  many  hundred  other  prophets,  how- 
ever, who  found  neither  protector  nor  hiding-place, 
but  were  ruthlessly  slain.  The  prophets  at  this 
period,  working  for  the  welfare  of  the  State,  were 
violently  opposed  and  persecuted  by  the  king. 

The  great  sacrifice  on  Mount  Carmel,  so  finely 
described  in  i  Kings  xviii.,  was  largely  an  appeal  to 
the  people  on  the  part  of  the  prophet.  The  king 
had  shown  no  disposition  to  interpret  correctly  the 
hand  of  God  in  the  history  of  his  own  times.  The 
court  of  last  resort  is  the  people,  and  this  appeal  may 
succeed  even  under  the  most  despotic  government. 
The  true  conception  of  this  great  effort  only  appears 
when  we  realise  that  Elijah's  purpose  was  neither  the 


i8o  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

working  of  a  miracle  nor  the  exhibition  of  prophetic 
power,  but  the  saving  of  the  people  of  God.  He 
seemed  to  accomplish  his  object.  The  immediate 
result  of  the  complete  failure  of  the  Baal  prophets  to 
meet  the  hard  conditions  imposed,  and  his  own 
triumphant  success,  was  that  the  people  cried  those 
words  sweeter  than  any  music  to  Elijah's  ears,  "  Jah- 
veh,  He  is  God  ;  Jahveh,  He  is  God." 

Elijah  was  quick  to  see  and  take  his  chances.  Mild 
treatment  was  not  fitted  for  such  rough  times.  A 
decisive  blow  must  be  struck  while  the  iron  was  hot. 
Baal  must  taste  some  of  Jezebel's  own  medicine. 
The  prophet  who  had  just  emerged  from  hiding,  and 
was  still  in  danger  of  his  life,  the  king  probably  being 
present,  assumes  high  governmental  powers  in  the 
name  of  his  God,  and  orders  the  immediate  execution 
of  the  whole  body  of  the  prophets  of  Baal. 

The  result  of  the  slaughter  of  these  prophets  was 
the  awful  oath  of  Jezebel  to  take  Elijah's  life.  Once 
more  he  fled,  no  longer  to  a  refuge  near  by,  but  out 
of  the  kingdom,  far  away  to  the  wilderness  of  Judah, 
where  he  yields  to  despair  and  prays  for  the  very 
thing  which  would  surely  have  come  without  petition 
to  heaven  had  he  remained  within  Jezebel's  reach. 
Notwithstanding  the  great  manifestation  of  Jahveh's 
power  and  the  mark  of  His  favour,  at  the  overthrow 
of  the  prophets  of  Baal,  in  the  fall  of  copious  rains, 
the  evil  influence  of  the  queen  was  dominant,  and 
the  people  quickly  followed  the  lead  of  their  sovereign. 
The  great  work  was  all  undone  in  a  moment.  What 
was  the  use  struggling  against  such  fearful  odds? 
The  usefulness  of  the  prophet  had  gone.    "  Let  it  now 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         i8i 

suffice,  O  Jahveh,"  he  cries  in  the  bitterness  of  his 
soul,  "  take  away  my  life ;  for  I  succeed  no  better 
than  my  fathers."  ^ 

But  Elijah  reckoned  without  a  comprehension  of 
God's  perseverance  in  a  forlorn  hope.  Not  easily 
does  God  abandon  His  purpose  to  save  His  people. 
When  one  means  fails  it  is  displaced  by  another, 
but  the  gracious  purpose  of  God  has  never  wavered 
from  the  time  of  Eve's  disobedience  to  this  day. 
Ahab  was  a  hopeless  failure,  but  a  king  is  too  frail 
to  stand  long  as  an  obstacle  in  the  way  of  God's 
good  purposes  towards  His  people.  Kings  rise  and 
fall,  but  the  redemptive  work  of  God  goes  on  for 
ever.  From  his  very  despair  comes  the  light,  not  in 
the  tempest  nor  the  earthquake,  but  in  the  clear  plan 
formulated  in  his  own  mind,  which  he  rightly  sees  to 
be  the  inspiration  of  heaven :  "  Do  thou  anoint 
Hazael  to  be  king  of  Aram  ;  and  Jehu  the  son  of 
Nimshi  shalt  thou  anoint  to  be  king  of  Israel ;  and 
Elisha,  the  son  of  Shaphat  of  Abel-meholah,  shalt 
thou  anoint  as  prophet  to  succeed  thee."  ^ 

To  strip  this  incident  of  its  Oriental  and  prophetic 
colouring  and  to  state  the  event  in  modern  terms  is 
not  impossible,  nor  does  it  lead  us  away  from  the 
truth.  Elijah  had  tried,  as  it  seemed  to  him,  every 
means  to  bring  the  people  back  to  God,  but  he  was 
always  thwarted  by  the  court.  In  the  course  of  his 
disconsolate  meditations  in  the  desert  a  new  sugges- 
tion comes  to  him  to  strike  higher  than  the  deluded 
prophets  who  felt  constrained  to  do  as  they  were  bid, 
and  to  reach  the  throne  itself.     Revolutions  in  two 

'  I  Kings  xix.  4.  -  i  Kings  xix.  15  f. 


i82  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

States  were  required,  and  the  appointment  and  train- 
ing of  one  worthy  to  follow  his  own  footsteps,  that 
the  great  task  might  not  flag  for  lack  of  inspired 
suggestions  and  unwearying  oversight.  This  new 
programme  seemed  to  the  disheartened  refugee  like 
a  fresh  voice  from  heaven  ;  and  who  dare  say  that  he 
was  mistaken?  The  task  now  entered  upon  was 
difficult  and  dangerous,  and  many  years  elapsed 
before  it  was  brought  to  completion.  However 
favoured  of  heaven,  the  leaven  must  do  its  work  in 
its  own  tedious  way,  for  God  is  not  wont  to  send 
twelve  legions  of  angels  to  the  succour  of  His  travail- 
ing servants. 

The  relations  of  Syria  and  Israel  were  so  close 
and,  at  the  same  time,  so  hostile,  that  the  fortunes  and 
peace  of  Israel  depended  no  little  upon  the  con- 
ditions in  Damascus.  When  the  revolution  referred 
to  above  was  finally  effected  at  the  instigation  of 
Elisha,  the  change  then  boded  no  good  to  Israel. 
Whether  the  long  delay  defeated  the  purpose,  or 
Elijah  was  mistaken  in  his  man,  we  cannot  say.  But 
Elisha,  though  loyally  carrying  out  the  instructions 
of  his  master,  saw  at  the  time  of  his  anointing  that 
Hazael  would  be  a  serious  danger  to  Israel.^ 

It  seemed,  too,  that  the  bloody  times  could  only  be 
changed  by  a  man  who  would  be  as  unscrupulous  in 

^  2  Kings  viii.  I2.  This  narrative  is  not  from  the  same  hand  as 
the  instructions  to  Elijah  in  I  Kings  xix.  15  f.,  and  some  writers  hold 
that  there  is  no  connexion  between  the  two.  It  seems  to  me  reason- 
able to  believe  that  Elijah  was  unable  to  effect  the  revolution  and 
transmitted  the  unfinished  task  to  his  successor ;  just  as  David  turned 
over  to  Solomon  the  avenging  of  his  own  wrongs,  because  he  had  been 
unable  to  redress  them  himself 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         183 

shedding  blood  for  Jahveh  as  Ahab  and  Jezebel  had 
been  in  shedding  it  for  Baal.  Jehu  had  already  a 
reputation  which  indicated  that  he  was  the  man  to 
meet  the  situation.  It  is  significant  of  the  man's 
character  that  he  was  recognised  at  a  distance  by  his 
furious  driving  of  his  chariot.^ 

It  was  essential  that  there  should  be  a  champion 
of  Jahveh  in  the  times  of  stress  which  were  sure  to 
come.  Elijah  was  growing  old.  He  could  not  endure 
the  strain  much  longer,  even  if  he  did  not  fall  a  prey 
to  the  persistent  seeking  for  his  life.  As  we  shall 
presently  see,  the  milder-tempered  Elisha  was  well 
adapted  to  the  work. 

Meanwhile,  Ahab  played  right  into  the  hands  of  the 
one  whom,  for  better  reasons  than  he  yet  knew,  he 
called  his  enemy.  So  far  Elijah  had  fallen  foul 
of  Ahab  on  account  of  his  departure  from  true 
worship.  Now  he  lights  upon  him  for  a  flagrant 
offence  in  morals.  The  prophet  is  guided  to  Ahab, 
and  finds  him  red-handed  with  the  murder  of  Naboth. 
The  seer's  clear  moral  sense  is  not  confused  because 
Ahab  could  plead,  as  an  extenuation  of  the  crime, 
that  Jezebel  had  been  the  author  of  the  ingenious 
plan,  and  that  a  regularly  constituted  court  had 
pronounced  the  death  sentence  upon  one  convicted 
of  blasphemy.  The  king  coveted  the  land  of 
Naboth,  and  sat  stupidly  by  while  his  more  clever 
queen  executed  the  black  plot.  But  Ahab  was  the 
real  culprit,  and  the  prophet  seizes  the  chance  fear- 
lessly to  pronounce  his  doom  :  "  Hast  thou  killed,  and 
also  taken  possession  ?     In   the   place   where   dogs 

^  2  Kings  ix.  20. 


i84  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

licked    the   blood    of   Naboth    shall   dogs    lick   thy 
blood."! 

It  is  refreshing  to  find  in  this  time,  when  the  great 
prophet's  ardent  desire  to  serve  the  State  brought 
him  into  constant  conflict  with  the  powers  that  be, 
that  other  prophets  found  themselves  able  to  give 
comfort  and  aid  to  Ahab  in  the  campaigns  against 
the  Syrians,  The  king  of  Israel  was  roused  to 
resistance  by  the  insulting  and  humiliating  terms 
which  Ben-hadad  proposed.  A  prophet,  whose  name 
is  unknown,  but  whom  the  compiler  may  have 
assumed  to  be  Elijah,  declared  that  Ahab  would  con- 
quer, and  advised  him  how  to  set  the  battle  in  array.^ 
In  another  campaign,  a  man  of  God,  stung  by  the 
reproach  that  Jahveh  was  a  god  of  the  hills  but  not 
of  the  valleys,  foretells  to  Ahab  another  great  victory .^ 
But  not  for  long  could  a  man  with  a  grain  of  wisdom 
approve  the  course  of  this  king.  Ahab  was  proud 
of  his  triumph,  and  gladly  spared  Ben-hadad,  trusting 
foolishly  to  a  treaty,  which  the  Syrian  would  be  ready 
enough  to  break  when  the  opportunity  should  come.* 
The  prophet  declared  that  Ahab's  life  and  the  life  of 
his  people  would  pay  the  penalty  of  his  ill-advised 
clemency.  It  is  not  strange  that  the  petulant  king 
returned  to  his  house  heavy  and  displeased.^ 

'  I  Kings  xxi.  19.  "  i  Kings  xx.  13  ff.  ^  I  Kings  xx.  28. 

*  Paton  suggests  that  Ahab's  aim  was  to  preserve  Damascus  as  a 
buffer-state  between  himself  and  the  Assyrians  (Syn'a  and  Palestine, 
p.  208). 

''  I  Kings  XX.  42  f.  This  chapter  does  not  belong  to  the  Elijah 
narrative,  and  was  incorporated  by  the  compiler  of  Kings  from  some 
other  source.  In  its  main  features  it  appears  to  be  a  good  historical 
narrative,  though  worked  over  by  later  revisers.  The  source  is  quite 
different  from  the  Elijah  story,  for  unknown  prophets — or  in  chapter  xxii., 


RELATION    TO   THE   STATE         185 

So  much  has  been  already  said  of  the  interesting 
story  of  Micaiah,!  that  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer 
to  it  here  as  a  good  instance  of  the  bitter  hostility  of 
the  State  towards  the  honest  prophet.  The  king 
demands  subserviency  of  the  prophets  as  well  as  of 
his  courtiers.  The  latter,  however,  are  kindly  dis- 
posed towards  Micaiah,  and  urge  him  to  feign  agree- 
ment with  Ahab's  favourites.  But  the  son  of  Imlah 
knows  that  the  prophet  of  Jahveh  can  fulfil  his  duty 
to  the  State  only  by  the  strictest  adherence  to  the 
truth.  Not  even  the  threats  of  the  king,  nor  the 
blows  of  his  fellow-seers,  could  move  him  to  say 
other  than  what  God  revealed. 

Once  again,  and  that  after  Ahab's  death,  does 
Elijah  appear  to  pronounce  judgment  upon  the  king. 
Ahaziah,  being  severely  wounded  by  a  fall,  and  having 
the  ardent  desire  which  possesses  every  mortal  under 
like  conditions  to  know  the  outcome,  is  said  to  have 
sent  messengers  to  inquire  his  fate  of  Baal-zebub,  the 
god  of  Ekron.  That  act  was  quite  sufficient  to  arouse 
the  zealous  prophet  of  Jahveh;  so  we  learn  that  Elijah 
sees  in  the  event  the  working  out  of  God's  doom 
upon  the  house  of  Omri."^ 

In  spite  of  the  unfortunate  prominence  of  legendary 
matter^  in  the  fragments  of  the  history  of  Elisha,  it 

Micaiah — take  the  place  of  Elijah.  Kuenen  supposes  the  prophet  to  be 
introduced  in  the  later  tradition  that  Israel's  rescue  should  appear  to  be 
the  work  of  God  {Buchcr  des  A.  T.,  p.  79).  ^  i  Kings  xxii. 

'^  2  Kings  i.  This  narrative  shows  the  marks  of  later  hands,  but  is 
probably  a  true  account  of  the  fate  of  Ahab's  son  and  successor. 

'  2  Kings  viii.  4  f.  gives  a  good  hint  how  these  stories  grew.  Gehazi 
is  engaged  in  telling  the  king  the  wonderful  deeds  of  his  master.  Still, 
the  very  circulation  of  these  stories  is  convincing  proof  that  Elisha  had 
been  a  man  possessed  of  remarkable  powers. 


i86  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

is  not  difficult  to  gather  some  significant  facts  which 
show  this  prophet's  attitude  towards  the  State. 

Elisha  had  followed  the  allied  kings  in  their  in- 
vasion of  Moab,  strange  to  say,  without  the  know- 
ledge of  either  of  them.  It  is  easy  to  divine  his 
purpose.  However  hostile  he  showed  himself  to  the 
king  of  Israel,^  he  was  not  hostile  to  the  nation 
which  God  had  planted  in  Canaan.  Moreover,  he 
looked  upon  Jehoshaphat  as  a  real  follower  of  Jahveh, 
and  so  worthy  of  his  consideration.  The  king  had 
an  equally  good  opinion  of  Elisha.  When  in  answer 
to  his  inquiring  whether  a  prophet  of  Jahveh  was 
with  the  host,  he  was  told  by  a  servant  of  his  royal 
brother  that  Elisha  was  there,  he  exclaimed,  "  The 
word  of  Jahveh  is  with  him."^  He  was  found  in  the 
camp  when  the  invaders  were  likely  to  perish  for 
lack  of  water,  and  was  able  to  save  the  armies.^ 

Elisha  followed  the  principle  that  he  could  wield 

^  Jehoran  or  Joram,  the  younger  brother  and  successor  of  Ahaziah. 
His  name  is  not  given  in  the  narrative. 

^  2  Kings  iii.  12. 

'  2  Kings  iii.  13  ff.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  spite  of  Elisha's 
prediction  that  Jahveh  would  deliver  the  Moabites  into  the  hands  of 
the  Hebrews,  the  invaders  fled  precipitately  {2  Kings  iii.  18,  27). 
Elisha's  forecast  might  easily  have  been  verified ;  for  at  first  the 
Hebrews  carried  everything  before  them,  and  brought  the  Moabites  to 
their  last  stand  in  Kir-hareseth.  Here  the  king  of  Moab  tried  in  vain 
to  cut  his  way  out ;  then,  in  desperation  at  his  failure,  he  offered  his 
eldest  son  as  a  human  sacrifice,  burning  him  on  the  wall  in  plain  sight 
of  the  besiegers.  According  to  the  ideas  of  the  times,  no  god  could 
resist  so  frantic  an  appeal.  Panic  seized  the  Hebrews.  No  prophet 
could  stay  their  flight ;  for  they  felt  that  they  were  in  sore  danger  of  a 
fierce  visitation  of  Chemosh,  whose  land  they  had  violated.  Whatever 
effect  the  offering  may  have  had  upon  Chemosh,  there  is  no  question 
of  its  effect  upon  the  Hebrews.  The  famous  Moabite  Stone  com- 
memorates this  victory. 


RELATION    TO   THE   STATE         187 

most  influence  over  the  king  by  keeping  on  good 
terms  with  him.  Except  in  the  above  instance,  we 
find  this  prophet  in  friendly  relation  with  his  sover- 
eign. There  was  a  Shunamite  who  had  provided  a 
lodging -place  for  the  prophet  in  his  wanderings. 
Elisha  desires  to  reward  her,  and  asks  her, "  Wouldest 
thou  be  spoken  for  to  the  king,  or  to  the  captain  of 
the  host  ?"^  We  cannot  look  upon  this  question  as 
an  empty  boast,  but  must  regard  it  as  evidence  that 
the  prophet's  recommendation  had  great  weight  with 
the  king  and  his  officers. 

There  is  further  evidence  of  this  influence  in  the 
release  of  the  captured  Syrians.^  Beneath  the  story, 
elaborated  as  it  is  with  legend,  we  may  trace  the  fact 
that  by  some  stroke  of  good  fortune,  so  unexpected 
as  to  seem  miraculous,  a  band  of  Syrians  was  cap- 
tured by  the  Israelites.  The  king  would  not  imitate 
the  lenient  policy  of  his  forebear,  but  proposed  to  rid 
himself  of  so  many  of  his  deadly  foes  by  their 
butchery  in  cold  blood.  Such  murder  was  abhorrent 
to  the  prophet,  and  the  time  had  not  yet  come  when 
prisoners  of  war  could  be  kept  honourably,  therefore 
the  only  course  was  their  release.  Elisha's  counsel 
must  have  been  highly  valued  indeed  that  the  king 
at  his  word  allowed  the  hated  Syrians  to  walk  un- 
harmed from  Samaria.^  The  impression  which 
Elisha  had  produced  upon  the  king  is  again  revealed 
in  his  calling  Gehazi  before  him  after  Elisha's  death, 

^  2  Kings  iv,  13.  "^2  Kings  vi.  8  ff. 

^  The  Chronicler  tells  us  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  9  ff. )  that  Pekah  was 
induced  to  release  200,cx)0  Judean  prisoners  captured  in  the  Syro- 
Ephraimitish  war. 


i88  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

and  listening  to  the  wonders  wrought  by  the  seer  in 
the  course  of  his  lifetime.^ 

This  fact  that  Elisha  stood  close  to  the  king  is  not 
contradicted  by  the  other  fact  that  at  one  time  the 
king  vowed  to  take  his  life.  It  appears  that  the  king 
would  have  surrendered  to  Syria,  but  that  by  Elisha's 
urgent  advice  he  decides  to  stand  a  siege,  a  clear 
evidence  of  the  prophet's  power  over  him.  When 
he  learnt  of  the  ghastly  condition  to  which  the 
people  were  reduced,  two  mothers  coolly  entering 
into  a  compact  to  cook  and  eat  their  babes,  he  swore 
that  Elisha's  head  should  not  remain  upon  his 
shoulders  another  day.^  The  king  was  resolved  to 
surrender  on  the  best  terms  he  could  make.  He 
could  scarcely  carry  out  this  resolution  in  the  face  of 
the  prophet  whom  he  regarded  as  responsible  for  the 
suffering,  and  whom  he  yet  dared  not  openly  resist ; 
therefore  in  the  heat  of  his  anger  he  determines  to 
take  the  prophet's  life.  Very  likely  he  would  have 
carried  out  this  purpose  but  for  the  timely  raising 
of  the  siege. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  Elisha  had  won  his  influence 
with  the  king,  not  only  by  the  display  of  his  remark- 
able powers,  but  still  more  by  the  aid  he  gave  the 
State  at  most  opportune  moments.  He  had  saved 
the  army  in  the  deserts  of  Edom,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  in  spite  of  his  declared  unwillingness  to  serve 
the  unfaithful  king  of  Israel.  He  healed  Naaman  of 
his  leprosy,  moved  no  little  by  the  king's  terror  lest 
his  inability  to  aid  his  enemy  and  virtual  over-lord 
should  be  made  a  casus  belli?     He  checkmated  the 

^  2  Kings  viii.  4.  "2  Kings  vi.  31.  ^2  Kings  v. 


RELATION    TO   THE   STATE  189 

cunning  of  the  Syrians  when  they  tried  to  fall  upon 
Israel  unawares,  by  discovering  their  lurking-places, 
and  reporting  them  to  his  king.^ 

Elisha  promptly  carried  out  one  part  of  his  master's 
programme,  the  revolution  by  which  Hazael  succeeded 
Ben-hadad.  Whether  or  not  he  foresaw  that  the  new 
king,  the  moment  he  heard  that  the  hand  of  destiny 
was  upon  him,  would  foully  murder  his  sovereign 
lying  sick  in  bed,  we  do  not  know.  There  are  very 
obscure  parts  of  this  story  as  it  has  survived  in 
2  Kings  viii.  7  ff.  The  prophet  seems  to  be  uncertain 
in  his  vision,  so  that  he  sends  word  to  Ben-hadad, 
"  Thou  shalt  surely  recover,"  ^  at  the  same  time  add- 
ing, "howbeit  Jahveh  showed  me  that  he  shall  surely 
die." 

Elisha  perceived  that  the  king's  sickness  was  not 
mortal,  and  sends  him  a  message  accordingly.  He 
perceived  also  that  the  king's  days  were  few,  and 
that  Hazael  would  succeed  him.  Probably  he  did 
not  know  that  a  cold-blooded  murder  would  be  the 
harmoniser  of  his  seemingly  contradictory  visions. 

But  the  house  of  Ahab,  contrary  to  the  declared 

^  2  Kings  vi,  8  ff.  It  is  vinnecessary  to  infer  from  this  fact  that  God 
directly  revealed  the  whereabouts  of  the  Syrians  to  his  servants,  or,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  reject  the  story  on  a  priori  grounds  of  impossibility. 
Elisha  was  the  head  of  one  or  more  bands  of  prophets.  They  were 
fleet  of  foot  and  hardy,  and  knew  every  nook  of  the  wild  lands,  where 
they  often  had  to  take  refuge.  They  would  make  ideal  scouts,  and 
were  probably  the  direct  source  of  the  prophet's  knowledge.  Some  of 
the  Syrians  had  an  exaggerated  idea  of  the  prophet's  powers  of  divina- 
tion ;  see  2  Kings  vi.  12. 

^  The  Hebrew  text  reads,  "Thou  shalt  not  recover."  The  margin 
gives  the  reading  I  have  followed.  The  kelhibh,  or  written  text,  seems 
to  be  due  to  an  ancient  harmonistic  tendency. 


190  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

will  of  God,  still  sat  upon  the  throne  of  Israel,  and 
the  old  sin  of  disloyalty  to  Jahveh  still  cropped  out. 
Among  the  generals  in  the  army  of  Israel  there  was 
one  heroic  in  battle,  fierce  in  disposition,  and  zealous 
for  the  God  of  Israel,  Jehu  the  son  of  Nimshi. 
Jehoram  had  been  wounded  in  the  attack  on  Ramoth- 
gilead,  which  he  was  trying  to  wrest  from  Hazael, 
the  new  ruler  of  Syria,  and  had  been  obliged  to 
retire  to  Jezreel  to  convalesce.  The  time  was  oppor- 
tune, and  Elisha  was  quick  to  see  and  seize  the 
chance.  Accordingly  he  sent  one  of  the  sons  of  the 
prophets  to  bid  Jehu  seize  the  throne.^  So  this 
prophet  virtually  ends  his  career,  so  far  as  we  know 
it,  by  inspiring  the  bloodiest  revolution  in  Hebrew 
history.  I  say  "  so  far  as  we  know  it "  advisedly,  for 
if  the  Bible  chronology  is  correct,  our  ignorance  of 
Elisha's  full  career  is  tremendous.  For  there  is  yet 
a  story  of  his  efforts  to  save  the  State,  which  is  placed 
in  the  reign  of  Joash,  Jehu's  grandson.  If  the  date 
is  right,  Elisha  must  have  lived  at  least  a  century. 

King  Joash,  so  we  read,  came  to  the  aged  prophet, 
now  lying  on  his  death-bed,  and  wept,  crying  the 
very  words  which  had  fallen  from  Elisha's  lips  many 
years  before  when  his  master  was  taken  from  his 
head,  "  My  father,  my  father,  Israel's  chariot  and  its 
horsemen." 2  Just  as  Elisha  had  looked  upon  Elijah's 
loss  as  the  taking  away  of  the  main  prop  of  a  feeble 
nation,  so  the  king,  looking  upon  the  pallid  face  of 
the  dying  seer,  perceives  the  loss  of  one  who  was  so 
much  the  mainstay  of  Israel  that  he  called  him  its 
chariot  and  horseman.     This  is  a  fine  tribute  to  the 

^  2  Kings  ix.  ^  2  Kings  xiii.  14  ;  cf.  ib.  ii.  12. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         191 

marvellous  career  of  the  man  of  God  from  the  lips 
of  the  king,  and  there  is  a  fine  exhibition  of  the 
warm  love  of  his  country,  which  age  and  the  hand  of 
death  could  not  tear  from  the  prophet's  bosom. 
Once  more  he  tries  to  inspire  the  weak  scion  of  the 
fierce  Jehu  with  courage  and  perseverance  to  with- 
stand to  the  utmost  the  constant  encroachment  of 
Syria  ;  for  so  must  we  interpret  the  obscure  incident 
of  the  bow  and  arrows.  But  the  king  smites  three 
times  and  then  his  feeble  hand  is  stayed — a  clear  sign, 
which  stirs  the  passions  of  the  prophet,  exhausted 
in  body  and  patience,  that  such  a  king  can  never 
rescue  his  State  from  the  perils  besetting  it. 

But  this  chapter  need  not  close  in  such  gloom  for 
Israel.  Joash's  son,  Jeroboam  II.,  was  of  sturdier 
fibre  than  his  father,  and  his  lot  was  cast  in  more 
auspicious  times.  Syria  discovered  an  enemy  in  its 
rear  which  so  fully  occupied  its  attention,  that  resist- 
ance to  Assyria  instead  of  advance  upon  Israel  be- 
came the  enforced  policy.  Jeroboam  was  aroused  to 
put  forth  his  energy,  to  make  full  use  of  the  critical 
state  of  Syria's  affairs,  by  the  hopeful  and  inspiriting 
prophecies  of  Jonah  the  son  of  Amittai,^  a  prophet 
who  is  otherwise  unknown  to  us,  unless  indeed  he  is 
the  original  of  that  prophet  whose  brief  career  was 
used  as  a  basis  for  the  beautiful  and  edifying  stories 
gathered  much  later  in  the  little  book  of  Jonah.  The 
statement  in  the  passage  cited  above  that  Jeroboam 
enlarged  the  borders  of  Israel  according  to  the  word 
of  Jahveh  which  He  spoke  by  Jonah  the  prophet, 
means  simply  that  Jonah's  insight  first  detected  the 

'  2  Kings  xiv.  25, 


192  THE    HEBREW    PROPHET 

favourable  opportunity,  and  that  the  prophet  directed 
the  king  in  his  operations. 

I  have  told  the  story  in  detail  of  the  activity  of 
the  early  prophets  in  the  affairs  of  State.  It  is 
desirable  now  to  try  to  gather  up  the  results  in  brief. 

1.  We  note  that  after  the  division  of  the  kingdom 
the  prophets  appear  in  Israel  rather  than  Judah. 
We  cannot  infer  that  there  were  no  prophets  in  the 
southern  kingdom,  but  only  that  we  have  no  know- 
ledge of  them.  Except  in  so  far  as  Judah  was  con- 
cerned in  the  affairs  of  Israel,  and  for  much  of  this 
time  Judah  was  the  vassal  of  Israel — its  history 
during  the  early  period  is  almost  a  blank  page.  The 
Chronicler  was  evidently  impressed  with  this  defect, 
and  tried  to  remedy  it,  but  he  was  too  far  removed 
from  original  sources  to  accomplish  much.  Jehosha- 
phat's  insistent  demand  for  the  counsel  of  a  prophet 
of  Jahveh  implies  that  he  was  accustomed  to  this  aid. 

2.  The  good  of  the  State  was  the  chief  concern  of 
these  prophets.  It  is  true  that  their  powers,  like 
those  of  the  seers  who  preceded  them,  were  often  at 
the  service  of  individuals.  But  that  was  only  an 
incident  in  the  day's  work.  It  is  clear,  from  a  study 
of  such  sources  as  we  have,  that  the  purpose  of  the 
prophet's  life  was  the  growth  of  the  chosen  people  in 
religious  and  political  power.  It  is  true  again  that  we 
have  no  full  history  of  the  private  lives  of  these 
prophets,  and  that  a  larger  knowledge  might  modify 
our  conclusion.  The  compiler  of  Kings  was  not 
concerned  with  prophetic  biography,  but  with 
national  history.  Nevertheless,  in  choosing  passages 
to    illumine    his    history,   he    fortunately   embodied 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         193 

whole  sections  instead  of  retelling  the  story  in  his 
own  way.  The  selected  passages  enable  us  to  form  a 
fair  idea  of  the  prophet's  life  as  a  whole,  and 
strengthen  our  conviction  that  the  early  seer  was  a 
patriot  and  statesman  rather  than  a  religious 
dreamer. 

3.  The  prophets  were  radicals,  not  conservatives. 
They  were  wont  to  find  the  most  congenial  place 
upon  the  opposition  bench.  The  policy  of  the  court 
was  not  such  as  to  win  the  approval  of  these  morally 
heroic  men.  They  never  hesitated  to  administer 
justly  deserved  reproof,  nor  to  predict  boldly  when 
they  perceived  that  disaster  would  be  the  inevitable 
consequence  of  national  folly. 

4.  They  were  so  radical  that  they  were  participes 
criminis  in  all  the  revolutions  of  the  period.^  They 
did  not  wait  to  follow  successful  movements  towards 
rebellion,  but  were  instigators  and  leaders.  This 
statement  requires  somewhat  fuller  illustration. 

We  have  seen  that  the  great  rebellion  of  the 
northern  kingdom  was  initiated  by  the  words  of 
Ahijah  in  the  willing  ears  of  Jeroboam  ;  and  that  that 
of  Jehu  was  instigated  by  Elisha.  There  is  also 
good  evidence  that  Baasha  received  the  first  sugges- 
tion of  rebellion  from  a  prophet.  Jehu  the  son  of 
Hanani  reproaches  this  successful  revolutionist  thus 
in  the  name  of  Jahveh  :  "  Since  I  lifted  thee  up  from 
the  dust,  and  placed  thee  as  prince  over  My  people 
Israel,  and  thou  hast  walked  in  the  way  of  Jeroboam, 

^  Nathan  was  a  staunch  loyalist  at  the  time  of  Adonijah's  rebellion  ; 
but  no  good  purpose  was  likely  to  be  attained  at  that  time  by  the  dis- 
placing of  a  Solomon  by  an  Adonijah. 

O 


194  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

and  hast  made  My  people  sin,  behold,  I  will  utterly 
sweep  away  Baasha  and  his  house."^  Then  it  is  said 
that  as  soon  as  he  became  king,  Baasha  smote  all  the 
house  of  Jeroboam,  "  according  to  the  word  of 
Jahveh  which  He  spake  by  the  mouth  of  Ahijah  the 
Shilonite."^  And  Ahijah  had  said  to  Jeroboam's 
wife  that  "Jahveh  would  raise  Him  up  a  king  over 
Israel  who  would  cut  off  the  house  of  Jeroboam."^ 
Whence  it  is  plain  that  if  Ahijah  or  some  successor 
did  not  whisper  rebellion  in  Baasha's  ear,  there  were 
yet  oracles  which  would  persuade  the  would-be  king 
that  he  might  head  a  righteous  revolt. 

The  prophecy  of  Jehu  not  only  confirms  the  im- 
pression that  Baasha  was  instigated  by  the  prophets, 
but  that  his  house  would  in  turn  be  overthrown  by 
the  same  power.  Jehu  declares  that  the  dynasty  of 
Baasha  will  go  down  as  it  had  come  up.  The 
various  attempts  to  fulfil  this  prophecy  by  Zimri  and 
Tibni,  and  the  successful  achievement  of  Omri,  the 
general  of  the  army,  were  surely  influenced  by  this 
prophecy,  if  they  were  not  the  direct  consequence  of 
the  suggestions  of  the  prophets. 

Finally,  it  was  declared  of  Jehu,  the  overthrower  of 
the  great  house  of  Omri,  that  his  dynasty  should 
survive  for  four  generations.*  This  was  promised 
because  he  had  done  well  in  his  wholesale  slaughter 
of  the  Baal  worshippers,  an  opinion  not  shared  by 
the  prophet  Hosea ;  but  it  is  not  difficult  to  believe 
that  the  real  occasion  of  the  prophecy  was  a  revolu- 
tion against   this   bloody  house  with  which   Hosea 

1  I  Kings  xvi.  2  f.  *  l  Kings  xv.  29. 

*  I  Kings  xiv.  14,  *  2  Kings  x.  30;  xv.  12. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         195 

may  have  had  something  to  do.  Even  in  post- 
exilic  days  it  was  charged  that  Nehemiah  was  aiming 
at  the  kingdom  by  the  aid  of  prophets  who  were 
inspired  by  him.^ 

I  have  indicated  here  and  there  the  distrust  on  the 
part  of  recent  scholars  of  the  accuracy  of  the  narra- 
tives in  which  the  various  prophets  appear  as  a  con- 
spicuous figure.  Most  of  these  sections  are  regarded 
as  late  insertions  because  of  the  apparently  legendary 
character  of  the  stories.  There  is  neither  space  for  a 
lengthy  critical  discussion  here,  nor  is  this  a  fit  place 
for  it.  But  while  it  is  clear  that  these  scholars  are 
not  without  some  ground  for  their  contention,  their 
conclusions  seem  to  me  to  be  too  sweeping.  One 
may  be  doubtful  of  the  story  that  Elijah  restored  a 
youth  to  life ;  but  it  is  a  long  step  from  this  to  a 
general  distrust  of  Elijah's  fight  for  the  true  God. 
Greater  discrimination  is  needed  in  our  judgment. 
The  stories  may  be  stripped  of  the  marvellous 
element,  due  to  the  accretions  of  later  ages,  and 
there  is  enough  left  to  show  that  in  those  early  days 
the  prophets  were  a  great  power  in  the  affairs  of  the 
nation,  and  that  they  always  used  their  power  for 
good. 

Our  study  has  now  carried  us  down  to  the  period 
of  the  literary  prophets,  who  began  with  Amos,  and 
whom  for  convenience  sake  I  have  sometimes  called 
the  great  prophets.  They  were  more  enlightened 
than  their  predecessors ;  they  lived  in  more  en- 
lightened days  ;  but  I  am  not  sure  that,  all  things 
considered,  they  were  really  greater  men.  The  early 
1  Neh.  vi.  7. 


196  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

seers  have  suffered  because  their  own  words  have 
perished,  and  because  the  story  of  their  works  has 
often  come  to  us  in  a  form  much  modified  by  a  later 
age,  which  looked  upon  the  most  marvellous  works 
as  the  greatest.  If  we  may  trust  the  Chronicler, 
there  still  survived  in  his  days  writings  such  as  these. 
The  words  of  Samuel  the  seer,  of  the  prophet 
Nathan,  of  Gad  the  seer,  of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite, 
of  Iddo  the  seer,  of  the  prophet  Shemaiah,  of  the 
prophet  Jehu,  the  words  of  the  seers,^  these  were 
all  sources  to  which  the  Chronicler  refers  for  further 
information.  They  were  histories,  not  of  the  seers 
written  by  others,  but  of  the  nation  written  by  the 
seers. 

If  this  information  is  correct,  Amos  was  by  no 
means  the  first  literary  prophet,  and,  moreover,  the 
national  interest  of  the  seers  was  so  strong  that  they 
wrote,  not  the  words  which  they  had  spoken,  but  the 
history  of  the  times  in  which  they  lived. 

Nevertheless,  we  cannot  fill  the  great  blank  in  the 
lives  of  these  prophets  by  conjecture.  As  we  know 
them,  the  prophets  from  Amos  to  Ezekiel  are  the 
great  prophets,  and  to  the  rich  field  of  their  writings 
we  gladly  turn ;  but  to  do  so  we  will  begin  a  fresh 
chapter. 

^  See  above,  p.  138  f. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE    PROPHET'S    RELATION    TO    THE 
STATE 

II,    AMOS   TO   ISAIAH 

THE  centre  of  interest  is  still  the  Northern 
Kingdom.^  The  bloody  revolutions  which  pre- 
vailed so  long  in  that  land  had  weakened  the 
strength  of  the  nation  very  seriously;  but  at  the 
period  with  which  we  have  now  to  deal  the  dynasty 
of  Jehu  was  coming  to  its  end,  and  that  at  a  time 
when  a  rather  better  ruler  than  usual  occupied  the 
throne,  and  one  who  had  the  further  advantage  of 
a  longer  administration  than  his  predecessors.  We 
cannot  overestimate  the  importance  of  a  long  period 
of  comparative  peace  for  a  nation  which  had  been 
constantly  beset  by  wars  from  without  and  revolu- 
tions from  within.  For  the  nearly  half-century  of 
the  reign  of  Jeroboam  H.  Israel  was  quite  free  from 
both  evils.  The  dynasty  of  Jehu  had  held  the 
throne  now  to  the  fourth  generation,  so  that  for  a 
century  there  was  no  rebellion.  The  persistent 
enemy  of  Israel,  Syria,  was  fully  occupied  in  a  vain 
attempt  to  keep  back  the  tide  which  the  Assyrian 

^  See  additional  note  (ii). 
197 


198  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Empire  was  rolling  up  on  the  east.^  Such  was  the 
political  condition  of  Israel  when  the  seer  of  Tekoa 
appeared  in  the  streets  of  Bethel. 

Amos  has  little  to  say  about  the  State  as  such. 
His  mission  was  to  go  preach  to  God's  people 
Israel.  The  moral  condition  of  the  nation  was  his 
chief  concern.  He  made  no  attempt  to  shape  the 
political  policy  of  the  State.  Whether  he  regarded 
Jeroboam's  statecraft  as  wise  or  foolish,  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing.  But  Amos  is  quick  to  disavow 
any  right  of  the  State  to  shape  his  course.  Though 
Amaziah  was  a  priest,  his  injunction  against  the 
preaching  of  Amos  was  not  issued  in  the  name  of 
the  Church,  but  in  the  name  of  the  State.  His 
complaint  to  Jeroboam  was  that  the  seer  conspired 
against  the  king  and  predicted  the  captivity  of 
the  people.  The  reason  he  urges  against  Amos  is 
that  Bethel  is  a  king's  sanctuary  and  a  royal  house. 

The  prophet,  however,  holds  a  commission  from 
his  God  with  which  the  State  has  no  right  to 
interfere.  Amos  consequently  holds  that  the  prophet 
has  a  free  hand  as  against  the  State,  and  his  practice 
was  consistent  with  that  theory.  Fearlessly,  there- 
fore, he  declared  that  the  nation  of  Israel  was 
rushing  to  its  doom,  and  that  the  royal  house  would 
be  involved  in  that  destruction.^  And  he  does  a 
more  perilous  thing  than  that.     He  not  only  predicts 

^  "  Damascus  was  too  crippled  with  her  wars  with  Assyria  to  hold 
them  [Judah  and  Israel]  in  subjection,  and  Assyria  was  too  weak  to 
collect  tribute  from  the  Palestinian  States.  The  result  was  that  both 
Judah  and  Israel  enjoyed  a  brief  season  of  unparalleled  prosperity  " 
(Paton,  Syria  and  Palestine,  p.  225). 

'■^  Amos  V.  27  ;  vi.  7,  14  ;  vii.  9,  17. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         199 

the  downfall  of  the  nation,  but  he  insists  that  the 
cause  of  the  overthrow  is  the  gross  immorality  of 
the  people.  That  is  indeed,  from  first  to  last,  the 
burden  of  his  preaching.  His  fundamental  theology- 
is  that  God  will  punish  the  wicked.  Israel  is  wicked 
above  almost  all  other  people  ;  therefore  their  punish- 
ment will  be  swift  and  sure.  In  the  Assyrians,  whose 
attack  on  Syria  was  giving  to  Israel  a  day  of  peace,^ 
which  they  greatly  misunderstood,  Amos  sees  the  rod 
which  Jahveh  would  lay  upon  the  back  of  Israel. 

Little  as  Amos  has  to  say  about  the  State,  it  is 
clear  that  his  whole  interest  is  to  save  that  State 
from  the  perils  to  which  it  is  exposed.  Assyria  may 
be  handicapped  for  a  time,  but  it  will  speedily 
recover  its  power.  Damascus  will  go  down  before 
its  increasing  blows,  and  then  what  can  Israel  do, 
exposed  directly  to  this  great  empire  ?  Amos  is 
not  a  soldier,  but  a  prophet.  He  has  no  suggestions 
to  make  about  fortifications  and  armaments.  But 
he  does  know  that  the  nation's  strength  is  being 
sapped  by  the  licentiousness  of  the  rich  and  the 
hard  lot  of  the  poor  masses.  Israel  can  be  strong 
enough  to  face  the  coming  storm  only  by  winning 
the  favour  of  God,  and  that  is  not  obtainable  by 
offering  sacrifices,  nor  by  merely  keeping  Sabbaths, 
but  by  doing  justice  every  one  to  his  neighbour. 
God's  help  would  not  be  given  in  a  miracle.  No 
uplifting  of  a  prophet's  hands  would  stay  the  hostile 
hosts.2     But  if  God's  principles  were  applied  in  the 

*  It  is  by  no  means  unlikely,  as  G.  A.  Smith  suggests  {Twelve 
Prophets ^  i.  p.  66),  that  Jeroboam  II.  obtained  his  exemption  from 
attack  by  the  payment  of  tribute.  Certainly  that  had  been  the  custom 
of  his  predecessors.  '  Exod.  xvii.  iif. 


200  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

daily  life  of  the  people,  then  the  nation  would  be 
strong.  God  would  be  on  the  side  of  the  heavy 
battalions,  because  national  strength  meant  national 
righteousness. 

If  we  may  accept  the  Messianic  passage  with 
which  the  prophecy  of  Amos  closes^  as  genuine, 
then  we  see  that  the  divided  condition  of  Israel  was 
regarded  by  Amos  as  at  best  an  evil  to  be  endured 
for  a  time  ;  for  in  the  Messianic  age  the  tabernacle 
of  David,  which  had  fallen  in  the  revolt  of  Jero- 
boam I.,  would  be  raised  up  again,  and  the  Hebrew 
race  would  be  reunited  under  a  royal  house  of  God's 
own  choosing. 

Hosea's  prophetic  career  extended  over  a  much 
longer  period  than  that  of  Amos,  and  Hosea  was  a 
native  of  Israel.^  It  may  have  been  the  voice  of  the 
Judean  seer  which  aroused  in  him  a  consciousness  of 
the  need  of  an  interpreter  of  the  Divine  will.  Amos 
saw  the  danger  to  Israel  while  it  was  still  far  off; 
but  Hosea  lived  long  enough  to  see  that  the  doom 
of  Samaria  was  very  near.^ 

^  Amos  ix,  II  ff.  The  arguments  for  and  against  the  authenticity  of 
this  passage  are  ably  stated  by  G.  A.  Smith  ( Twelve  Prophets ^  i.  chap.  x.). 
He  regards  the  verses  as  an  addition  made  long  after  Amos,  This 
position  is  generally  accepted.  It  seems  to  me  not  impossible  that 
Amos  may  have  expressed  the  hope  for  the  restoration  of  unity  to 
the  nation  under  the  Davidic  dynasty,  and  that  a  later  hand  worked 
over  the  passage  and  added  to  it  the  further  hopes  of  his  own  day. 

^  G.  A.  Smith  says  he  was  probably  a  priest ;  but  there  is  little 
evidence  to  support  that  view. 

^  It  may  be  noted  that  Hosea  i.-iii.  probably  belongs  to  the  time  of 
Jeroboam  II.,  and  iv.-xiv.  to  the  decade  following,  so  that  the  actual 
prophecies  of  Hosea  end  some  ten  years  before  the  fall  of  Samaria, 
See  G.  A.  Smith,  Twelve  Prophets^  i.  p.  216  ff.  ;  Kuenen,  Einl.,  ii.  312. 
The  title  to  Hosea's  book  extends  his  work  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  ; 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         201 

Hosea  did  not  hesitate  to  hold  the  king  respon- 
sible for  his  wrongs.  The  royal  house  as  well  as  the 
priests  would  find  a  judgment  lodged  against  them,^ 
because  they  had  been  a  snare  at  Mizpah  and  a  net 
spread  upon  Tabor.  Hosea  does  not  scruple  to 
expose  the  princes  who  had  indulged  in  drunken 
excesses  "  on  the  day  of  the  king,"  ^  that  is,  on  the 
day  of  his  coronation,  or  on  his  birthday.^  The 
prophet  was  not  slow  to  call  the  king  to  account ; 
for  the  seer  understood  and  followed  the  will  of  God, 
and  God  was  the  real  sovereign  of  the  nation,  the 
king  being  at  best  but  a  vicegerent.  All  the  national  i 
movements  were  subject  to  Divine  control.  In  fact,  ' 
the  existence  of  the  nation  depended  upon  the  will 
of  God,  who  had  called  His  Son  out  of  Egypt  while  \ 
He  was  still  a  child.*  | 

Hosea  therefore  held  that  no  king  had  a  right  to 
sit  upon  the  throne  except  by  Divine  appointment. 
Yet  he  found  kings  in  Israel  who  had  no  such  right 
to  rule :  "  They  have  set  up  kings,  but  not  by  Me  ; 
they  have  made  princes,  and  I  knew  it  not."^  This 
statement  raises  some  large  questions :  Does  Hosea 
refer  here  to  the  whole  line  of  Israelitish  kings  ?  That 
is,  does  he  contend  that  only  the  Davidic  dynasty  is 
approved  of  God  ?    And  was  the  revolt  of  Jeroboam, 

but  the  mention  of  the  Judean  kings  there  can  scarcely  be  original. 
Dr.  Peters  places  some  of  the  prophecies  of  Hosea  in  the  time  of 
Hoshea,  apparently  to  explain  the  reference  to  Egypt ;  and  chapters 
X.  and  xiv.  he  places  even  after  the  fall  of  Samaria  {Scriptures  Hebrew 
and  Christian^  p.  425  ff.).  It  is  difficult  to  think  that  Hosea's  career 
extended  so  far. 

^  Hosea  v.    i.     Reading  as  R.V.  margin  ;  G.   A.  Smith  renders  . 
forcibly  "on  you  is  the  sentence."  ^  Hosea  vii.  $. 

'  See  Matt.  xiv.  6.  ■•  Hosea  xi.  i.  ^  Hosea  viii.  4. 


202  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

and  the  subsequent  revolts,  though  supported  by 
prophets,  the  sin  of  schism?  Or  does  the  prophet 
allude  here  to  some  particular  kings  of  Israel?  We 
shall  seek  for  Hosea's  answer  to  these  questions. 

It  is  certain  that  Hosea  did  not  look  with  favour 
upon  the  reigning  house  of  Jehu ;  for  he  names  one 
of  his  children  Jezreel,  because  in  a  little  while  God 
would  avenge  the  blood  of  Jezreel  upon  the  house  of 
Jehu,  and  cause  the  kingdom  of  the  house  of  Israel 
to  cease.^  In  the  better  days  yet  to  come,  Hosea, 
like  Amos,  looks  for  a  reunion  of  the  two  kingdoms 
under  one  head,^  and  that  of  the  line  of  David.^ 
Hosea  never  finds  anything  good  to  say  of  the 
rulers  of  Israel.  In  the  bitter  days  yet  to  befall  the 
State  the  people  will  be  disillusioned,  and  will  deny 
their  king,  and  confess  his  impotence.'*  That  the 
prophet  says,  in  the  name  of  Jahveh,  "  I  give  thee  a 
king  in  My  anger,  and  take  him  away  in  My  wrath,"  ^ 
implies  no  more  than  an  explanation  of  the  fact 
that  kings  were  suffered  to  rule  in  Israel,  though 
contrary  to  God's  will. 

In  endeavouring  to  learn  exactly  what  Hosea's 
attitude  towards  his  own  government  was,  there  are 
some  facts  which  we  may  state  as  certain.  The  house 
of  Jehu,  though  established  by  a  rebellion  instigated 
by  Elisha,^  had  proved  a  failure  in  the  essentials  of 

^  Hosea  i.  4.  "  Hosea  i.  il.  '  Hosea  iii.  5. 

■*  Hosea  x.  3  ;  cf.  xiii.  10.  *  Hosea  xiii.  il. 

^  Kent  says  that  "the  details  of  the  narrative  suggest  that  this 
[Elisha's  action]  was  only  the  launching  of  a  conspiracy  previously 
arranged"  {Hist.,  ii.  66).  Our  information  is  very  scanty,  but  while 
the  narrative  will  admit  such  a  situation,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  to 
suggest  it. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         203 

a  divinely  ordered  line  of  kings.  Jehu  shed  so  much 
blood,  and  that  the  best  in  the  land,  to  insure  his 
possession  of  the  throne,  that  the  nation  was  seriously 
weakened  as  a  consequence.  This  assassination  of 
the  innocent  was  a  crime  in  Hosea's  eyes  for  which 
God  would  hold  the  house  of  the  criminal  to  strict 
account.  Then,  again,  Jehu  paid  tribute^  to  Shal- 
manezer  II.,  the  king  of  Assyria,  in  842  B.C.  There 
could  have  been  but  one  purpose  in  this  payment, 
namely,  to  secure  the  powerful  aid  of  Assyria  for  his 
newly  won  throne.  That  method  of  dependence 
upon  foreign  aid  instead  of  upon  the  God  of  Israel 
was  also  wholly  repugnant  to  Hosea.  Though 
Jeroboam  II.'s  reign  was  a  period  of  peace  and 
prosperity,  Hosea  could  see  that  it  was  in  spite  of 
the  king  rather  than  because  of  him  ;  for  it  was  due 
to  the  Assyrian  pressure  upon  Syria,  Israel's  in- 
veterate foe.  The  moral  rottenness  of  the  times 
impaired  the  power  of  the  nation  to  take  full  ad- 
vantage of  the  breathing  spell. 

Again,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  greater  part  of 
Hosea's  prophesying  belongs  to  the  years  of  dis- 
astrous anarchy  following  the  death  of  Jeroboam  II., 
about  743  B.C.  In  the  twenty  years  from  this  date 
to  the  fall  of  Samaria  there  were  six  different  kings 
upon  the  throne  of  Israel,  and  four  of  them  reached 
that  station  as  the  result  of  a  revolution.  Under 
such  conditions  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  prophet 

^  Thus  Jehu  doubly  weakened  the  nation  by  slaying  its  citizens 
and  by  imposing  heavy  taxes  to  meet  his  obligations  to  Assyria.  To 
a  clear-minded  prophet  such  administration  was  not  a  mark  of  Divine 
guidance. 


204  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

spoke  slightingly  of  the  royal  house,  and  expected 
little  towards  the  redemption  of  the  nation  from 
kings  who  sat  on  a  throne  to  which  they  had  no 
claim  other  than  the  sharpness  of  their  swords  or  the 
support  of  a  foreign  power.  Most  scholars  rightly 
hold  that  Hosea's  references  to  the  king  are  to  be 
explained  by  virtue  of  these  conditions,  and  are  not 
due  to  his  condemnation  of  the  great  revolt  of  Jero- 
boam the  son  of  Nebat. 

On  the  other  hand,  W.  Robertson  Smith  ^  and 
Cheyne,^  while  admitting  this  special  reference,  still 
hold  that  Hosea  believed  that  the  Divine  right  of 
kings  only  existed  in  the  house  of  David.  My  own 
opinion  coincides  with  theirs,  Hosea  did  not  believe 
in  the  Davidic  line  as  a  matter  of  theory,  but  as  a 
matter  of  practice.  Whatever  good  may  have  been 
possible  from  the  great  schism,  very  little  had  been 
realised.  The  kingdom  of  Israel,  which  had  been  the 
principal  state  in  Palestine,  had  decayed  until  now  it 
was  but  a  petty  power. 

But  Hosea  held  to  two  fundamental  principles 
which  greatly  influenced  his  political  position.  It 
was  to  him  vital  that  the  nation  should  be  faithful  to 
Jahveh,  and  as  a  consequence  that  it  should  be  one. 
Robertson  Smith  does  not  exaggerate  when  he  says, 
"  To  Hosea  the  unity  of  Israel  is  a  thing  of  pro- 
found significance.  .  .  .  The  unity  of  Israel  and  the 
unity  of  God  are  the  basis  of  his  whole  doctrine  of 
religion  as  a  personal  bond  of  love  and  fidelity."^ 
These  ideals  could  not  be  realised  under  such  con- 

'  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  184.  ^  Hosea  in  Camb.  Bib.,  p.  82. 

3  Op.  cit.,  p.  186  f. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         205 

ditions  as  prevailed  in  Israel.  There  had  never  been 
stability  in  the  government.  From  first  to  last, 
revolution  had  been  the  order  of  the  day.  In  a 
period  of  a  little  more  than  two  hundred  years  there 
were  nine  dynasties,  each  new  house  the  result  of  a 
sanguinary  revolution.  Then,  again,  the  worship  of 
Baal,  or  of  some  other  foreign  god,  was  ever  prevalent. 

In  Judah,  on  the  other  hand,  the  house  of  David 
persisted  uninterruptedly  from  the  founder  to  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem.  While  there  was  much  apostasy  in 
Judah,  there  was  never  a  time  when  Jahveh  was  not 
worshipped  there,  and  that  worship  ever  had  the 
support  of  the  crown.  It  is  on  these  grounds  that 
this  prophet  could  see  no  hope  for  Israel  except  by 
reunion  with  Judah,  involving  a  reallegiance  to  the 
house  of  David.  A  stable  government  and  an  un- 
swerving devotion  to  Jahveh  were  essential  to  the 
national  life,  so  Hosea  thought ;  and  history  had 
shown  that  those  were  not  attainable  under  the 
anarchistic  condition  into  which  the  North  had 
fallen. 

Hosea's  confidence  in  the  collapse  of  Samaria 
shows  not  only  his  Divine  insight,  but  also  his  know- 
ledge of  human  nature — if  indeed  these  are  not 
essentially  the  same  thing.^  There  was  no  sign  that 
the  one  way  of  salvation  was  discerned  by  the  people, 
still  less  by  the  puppet  kings,  greedy  of  power,  and 
dearly  loving  shame.  ^  The  nation  would  not  see  its 
way,  necessarily  a  path  of  humility,  and  follow  it 
until  it  had  tasted  to  the  last  dregs  the  cup  of 
schismatic  folly.  Instead  of  turning  to  its  natural 
^  See  John  ii.  24  f.  ^  Hosea  iv.  i8. 


2o6  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

ally,  at  one  time  the  monarchy  vainly  sought  to 
purchase  stability  by  subserviency  to  Assyria ;  ^  at 
another  time,  when  the  Assyrian  allegiance  appeared 
to  be  approaching  the  inevitable  result  of  annexa- 
tion, relief  was  sought  from  Egypt.^  The  prophet 
opposed  both  courses ;  for  God  had  no  desire  to  save 
Israel  by  either  Assyrian  or  Egyptian  help,  but  only 
by  their  turning  with  sincere  penitence  to  God  their 
Father  and  to  David  their  king. 

If  Hosea  was  a  sincere  loyalist  and  believed  that 
the  final  peace  of  Israel  was  to  be  found  in  the  unity 
of  the  whole  seed  of  Abraham,  his  patriotic  senti- 
ments did  not  blind  him  to  the  fact  that  the  moral 
condition  of  Judah  was  by  no  means  answerable  to 
their  high  calling.  A  number  of  references  to  Judah^ 
show  that  the  sister  kingdom  was  guilty  like  Israel, 
and  should  be  punished  accordingly.  These  declara- 
tions of  the  prophet  seem  strange  to  many  scholars 
in  view  of  his  loyalty  to  the  house  of  David.  Hence 
Stade,  Wellhausen,  Cornill,  and  others  have  con- 
cluded that  all  the  Judah  passages  are  interpolations. 
The  critical  scholars  have  here  done  exactly  what 
the  conservatives  are  often  justly  blamed  for  doing, 
modifying  the  text  to  harmonise  with  preconceived 
ideas.  There  is  no  prophet  who  would  have  been 
less  at  pains  for  logical  consistency  than  Hosea, 
Moreover,  we  cannot  omit  the  references  to  Judah 
without  a  perceptible  mutilation  of  the  text.    Hosea's 

^  Hosea  v.  13;  vii.  8,  II  ;  viii.  9 ;  x.  6 ;  xi.  5 ;  xiv.  3. 
*  Hosea  vii.  1 1  ;  ix.  6 ;  xii.  I. 

2  Hosea  i.  7 ;  iv.  15 ;  v.  5  ff.,  10  ff.  ;  vi.  4,  11  ;  viii.  14  ;  x.  n  ; 
xi.  12 ;  xii.  2. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         207 

prophecies  are  much  disjointed  at  best,  but  the  indis- 
criminate excision  of  these  passages  adds  to  the 
confusion.  The  truth  is  that  Rosea  beHeved  in 
established  order,  and  that  belief  made  him  a  loyalist 
without  blinding  his  eyes  to  facts.  One  may  be  an 
ardent  believer  in  an  established  Church  without 
closing  his  eyes  to  its  shortcomings. 

There  are  other  passages  in  which  Hosea  speaks 
more  favourably  of  Judah.  "  I  will  have  mercy  upon 
the  house  of  Judah,  and  will  save  them  by  Jahveh 
their  God,  and  will  not  save  them  by  bow,  neither 
by  sword,  nor  by  battle,  by  horses,  nor  by  horsemen."^ 
Kuenen  pronounces  this  "  the  one  really  doubtful 
passage"  among  the  Judah  references.^  G.  A.  Smith 
is  more  pronounced  :  "  it  is  so  obviously  intrusive  in 
a  prophecy  dealing  only  with  Israel,  and  it  so  clearly 
reflects  the  deliverance  of  Judah  from  Sennacherib 
in  701,  that  we  cannot  hold  it  for  anything  but  an 
insertion  of  a  date  subsequent  to  that  deliverance, 
and  introduced  by  a  pious  Jew  to  signalise  Judah's 
fate  in  contrast  with  Israel's."^  The  English  versions 
render  a  doubtful  passage  in  Hosea  xi.  12,  "But 
Judah  ruleth  yet  with  God,  and  is  faithful  with  the 
Holy  One."  Cheyne  renders,  "Judah  is  yet  way- 
ward towards  God,  and  towards  the  faithful  Holy 
One."  *  G.  A.  Smith  says,  "  Something  is  written 
about  Judah,  but  the  text  is  too  obscure  for  transla- 
tion ";5  but  he  adds  that  "an  adverse  statement  is 
required  by  the  parallel  clauses."      Nothing  better 

^  Hosea  i.  7.  '  Einl.^  ii.  323. 

*  Twelve  Prophets,  i.  213.  *  Camb.  Eib.  in  loc. 

'  Twelve  Prophets,  i.  301. 


2o8  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

can  be  made  out  of  the  Hebrew  text  than  Cheyne's 
rendering ;  no  satisfactory  emendation  has  yet  been 
proposed  ;  the  passage  is  therefore  too  uncertain  to 
weigh  much  in  an  argument.  There  is  one  other 
expression  favourable  to  Judah :  "  Though  thou, 
Israel,  play  the  harlot,  yet  let  not  Judah  offend."^ 
G.  A.  Smith  regards  this  verse  and  the  following 
doubtful  because  "  Hosea  nowhere  else  makes  any 
distinction  between  Ephraim  and  Judah,"  and  on 
other  grounds  as  well.^  Kuenen  looks  upon  the  verb 
DtJ'K  "offend"  as  characteristic  of  Hosea,  it  being 
used  also  in  Hosea  v.  15  ;  x.  2  ;  xii.  i  ;  xiv.  i  ;  "the 
wish  expressed  with  reference  to  Judah,"  he  says, 
"  fits  exactly  Hosea's  favourable  sentiments  towards 
the  sister  kingdom."  ^  The  passage  can  scarcely  be 
regarded  as  above  suspicion  ;  but  the  hope  expressed 
that  Judah  would  not  fall  hopelessly  into  the  parti- 
cular vice  of  idolatry  which  characterised  Ephraim, 
seems  to  me  perfectly  harmonious  with  Hosea's 
position. 

I  have  gone  into  this  part  of  Hosea's  teaching 
with  considerable  fulness,  because  of  its  importance, 
and  the  difficulties  involved.  We  have  seen  what 
the  prophet's  attitude  towards  the  State  was  ;  and 
now  we  naturally  desire  to  know  what  was  the  State's 
attitude  towards  the  prophet ;  for  his  utterances 
could  have  been  considered  nothing  less  than  high 
treason.  It  must  be  confessed  that  Hosea's  book 
throws  no  direct  light  on  the  matter.  But  indirectly 
we  may  be  able  to  get  some  information. 

^  Hosea  iv.  15.  ^  Twelve  Prophets,  i.  224. 

2  Einl.y  ii.  323. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         209 

The  period  of  Hosea's  most  active  prophesying 
was  the  unsettled  decade  between  Jeroboam  II.  and 
Pekah.  There  is  nothing  which  can  be  even  a 
remote  reference  to  the  attempt  of  Pekah  to  coerce 
Judah  into  the  alliance  against  Assyria.  The  voice 
which  had  been  so  insistent  against  the  moral  wrongs 
and  political  blunders  is  silent  just  when  these  reach 
their  climax.  Silence  under  such  conditions  could 
scarcely  be  voluntary.  In  the  period  of  constant 
revolution  the  upstart  kings  were  too  busy  maintain- 
ing their  short-lived  reigns  by  the  hunting  down  of 
political  rivals  to  trouble  themselves  about  the  utter- 
ances of  a  comparatively  obscure  prophet.  But  with 
the  accession  of  Pekah  conditions  were  changed. 
He  desired  an  alliance  with  Judah,  not,  however,  by 
resigning  his  throne  in  favour  of  the  legitimate 
dynasty  of  David,  but  by  overthrowing  that  house, 
and  imposing  a  foreign  king  ^  on  the  throne. 

At  the  beginning  of  Pekah's  reign  -  Israel  seemed 
to  take  a  new  lease  of  life.  Allied  with  other  Pales- 
tinian powers,  Pekah  was  able  to  keep  his  throne 
secure  at  home  while  waging  war  upon  Judah.  A 
prophet  who  upheld  the  most  sweeping  claims  of  the 
Davidic  house  was  not  likely  to  be  viewed  with  favour 
at  such  a  time  as  this.     It  is  not  improbable  that  the 

^  The  son  of  Tabeel,  probably  a  Syrian  (Isa.  vii.  6).  Winckler 
identifies  him  with  Rezon  {K.A.T.'^,  135).  If  this  is  correct,  Syria 
and  Judah  were  to  be  united  under  one  sceptre. 

'^  Pekah's  reign  is  given  as  twenty  years  in  2  Kings  xv.  27 ;  but  the 
inscriptions  show  that  this  is  far  too  long.  According  to  the  best  light 
available  now,  this  king  ruled  not  more  than  three  years.  Menahem 
paid  tribute  to  Assyria  in  738,  and  Pekah  was  overthrown  and  Hoshea 
put  in  his  place  in  734, 
P 


210  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

State,  in  the  person  of  the  rebel  king,  was  respon- 
sible for  the  silence  of  the  prophet's  voice.  If  this 
inference  is  correct,  Hosea  must  be  enrolled  among 
the  martyrs  ;  for  his  spirit  was  not  one  that  would 
yield  to  mere  threats. 

The  book  of  Micah  presents  serious  critical  diffi- 
culties to  the  student.  The  matter  is  not  helped  by 
the  great  divergence  of  opinion  of  the  best  scholars. 
Nowack  holds  ^  that  only  chapters  i.  2-ii.  ii,  iii.,  and 
probably  iv.  9  f.  14,  v.  9-13  are  from  Micah.  On  the 
other  hand,  several  recent  writers,  especially  Wilde- 
boer,  Von  Ryssel,  Elhorst,  who  have  written  at  length 
upon  this  book,  defend  the  genuineness  of  the  whole.^ 
Driver  and  G.  A.  Smith  accept  as  genuine  a  much 
larger  portion  than  most  other  scholars.  For  my 
purpose,  however,  it  is  not  necessary  to  enter  into 
these  questions;  for,  as  a  rule,  the  few  passages  which 
show  Micah's  relation  to  the  State  are  undoubtedly 
authentic. 

Micah  evidently  regarded  the  prophet  as  the 
divinely  appointed  guardian  of  the  State.  Conse- 
quently he  was  fearless  to  rebuke  those  who  were 
wrong,  no  matter  what  their  power  or  position  might 
be.  In  iii.  1-4,  he  reproves  "the  heads  of  Jacob  and 
rulers  of  the  house  of  Israel,"  ^  for  they  loved  evil  and 
hated  good,  and  did  not  scruple  to  wax  fat  by  op- 
pressing the  people.     The  rulers  made  use  of  their 

^  Art.  "Micah,"  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary. 

^  See  G.  A.  Smith,  Twelve  Prophets,  i.  358  ff. ,  for  a  good  summary 
of  the  critical  opinions. 

^  That  Micah  means  the  terms  Jacob  and  Israel  at  least  to  include 
Judah  is  certain  from  iii,  9  i. ,  where  it  is  said  that  these  same  rulers 
build  up  Zion  with  blood. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         211 

official  position  to  heap  up  wealth  for  themselves — a 
condition  of  things  still  widely  prevalent  in  spite  of 
the  innumerable  prophets  who  have  raised  their  voice 
in  protest.  But  Micah  believed  in  a  just  God,  and 
therefore  he  looked  upon  punishment  as  certain.  In 
the  distress  which  would  come  upon  these  oppressors 
they  would  cry  to  Jahveh  for  deliverance ;  but  Jah- 
veh's  ears  would  be  closed  to  such  unworthy  suppli- 
ants. Those  who  fed  upon  their  neighbours,  and 
only  thought  of  God  when  their  neighbours  proposed 
to  feed  upon  them,  would  find  that  they  had  sown 
the  wind  and  would  reap  the  whirlwind. 

Micah  has  more  to  say  of  these  same  high  officers 
of  State.  "  They  build  up  Zion  with  blood  and  Jeru- 
salem with  iniquity."  ^  They  were  all  led  by  purely 
mercenary  motives :  "  The  heads  thereof  judge  for 
reward,  and  the  priests  thereof  teach  for  hire,  and  the 
prophets  thereof  divine  for  money."  ^  It  is  vain  for 
such  to  lean  upon  Jahveh  and  say,  "  Is  not  Jahveh  in 
our  midst  ?  Therefore  no  evil  shall  befall  us."  Such 
leaders  as  these  could  not  avert  the  punishment  which 
God  would  inflict  upon  the  unrighteous.  Officers  of 
this  character  would  prove  of  no  avail  in  the  hour  of 
peril.  Even  the  king  would  not  serve  as  a  support 
for  the  tottering  State.  The  prophet  looks  to  the 
future  and  sees  the  distress  coming  upon  the  city : 
"  Now  why  dost  thou  cry  out  aloud  ?  "  he  asks.  "  Is 
there  no  king^  in  thee,  is  thy  counsellor  perished, 

^  Micah  iii.  lo.  ^  Micah  iii.  il. 

^  Many  suppose  the  "king "  to  refer  to  Jahveh.  This  is  necessarily 
the  explanation  of  those  who  assign  this  section  to  a  later  date  than 
Micah.  That  interpretation  gives  to  the  whole  passage  a  sense  widely 
different  from  that  above. 


212  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

that  pangs  have  taken  hold  of  thee  as  of  a  woman 
in  travail?"^  The  king  would  not  even  have  the 
semblance  of  saving  the  State.  Jahveh  alone  would 
do  that  after  the  king  and  counsellor  had  been  cast 
away,  and  the  people  made  to  feel  the  bitterness  of 
exile.2 

However  frankly  Micah  spoke  his  mind,  the  king 
did  not  attempt  to  restrain  his  speech.  No  prophet 
was  ever  plainer  than  Micah  when  he  said,  "  Zion 
shall  be  plowed  as  a  field,  and  Jerusalem  become 
heaps,  and  the  mountain  of  the  house  as  the  high 
places  of  the  forest."^  There  is  nothing  in  Micah's 
own  book  to  show  how  the  land  bore  his  words ; 
but  there  is  testimony  of  the  highest  order  in  Jere- 
miah. Here  we  learn  that  Hezekiah  and  the  people 
of  Judah  not  only  did  not  think  of  putting  the 
prophet  to  death,  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  feared 
Jahveh  and  entreated  His  favour,  so  that  Jahveh 
repented  of  the  evil  He  had  pronounced  upon  them.* 
It  was  the  heeding  of  Micah's  preaching  on  the 
part  of  the  king  which  postponed  the  woe  that 
the  prophet  had  foretold.  In  the  reign  of  Hezekiah, 
who  for  other  reasons  is  justly  called  a  good  king, 
we  find  a  time  of  tolerance  such  as  the  prophets 
rarely  enjoyed  in  other  periods  of  Hebrew  history. 

Of  all  the  prophets  whom  God  raised  up  among 
the  Hebrew  people,  the  greatest  statesman  was  Isaiah 
the  son  of  Amoz.  He  was  concerned,  as  every  true 
man  of  God  must  be  concerned,  with  all  vital  in- 
terests of  his  people.     But  he  gave  himself  unceas- 

^  Micah  iv.  9.  *  Micah  iv.  10. 

^  Micah  iii,  12.  *  Jer.  xxvi.  17  ff. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         213 

ingly  to  the  great  problem  of  saving  the  State,  which 
in  his  long  life  faced  many  critical  situations.  It  is 
unnecessary — indeed,  it  is  well-nigh  impossible  within 
my  limits — to  bring  out  every  detail  of  his  work  for 
the  State.  But  a  few  conspicuous  instances  will  show 
his  position. 

Isaiah  held  fast  to  a  few  cardinal  principles  which 
served  as  a  good  guide  at  all  critical  junctures.  He 
believed  that  Judah  was  under  the  protection  of  an 
all  mighty  and  all  holy  God.  The  peace  and  safety 
of  the  State  depended  therefore  on  fidelity  to  Him 
and  confidence  in  Him.  Political  devices,  such  as  were 
commonly  resorted  to  by  all  peoples  in  all  ages, 
would  in  the  long  run  work  only  harm  to  a  feeble 
folk  like  the  Judeans.  Zion  would  be  invulnerable, 
not  by  reason  of  her  good  armies,  nor  by  member- 
ship in  a  foreign  alliance,  but  by  independence  of 
every  power  of  earth,  and  by  sole  reliance  upon 
Jahveh  of  hosts. 

Consequently  we  find  him  standing  in  direct 
opposition  to  king  Ahaz  at  the  time  of  the  Syro- 
Ephraimitish  war.  His  position  in  that  trying  time 
shows  both  his  steadfast  adherence  to  his  funda- 
mental doctrine  and  his  political  insight. 

Razon  ^  of  Damascus  and  Pekah  of  Israel  were 
organising  a  league  to  resist  the  Assyrian  advance 
west  of  the  Euphrates.  They  believed  that  by  a  con- 
solidation of  interests  they  could  throw  off  the 
domination    of  that    great   power   and    successfully 

^  Rezin,  the  Biblical  form  of  the  name,  is  an  easily  understood  error 
for  Rezon  or  Razon.  The  Greek  texts  have  Pao-wv  or  Vaacuv,  agreeing 
with  Assyrian  Rasunnu.     See  K.A.T?^  iii.  55. 


214  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

resist  a  reforging  of  their  chains.  They  seem  to  have 
invited  Ahaz  along  with  other  kings  to  join  their 
league,  but  Ahaz  refused.  Judah  was  too  consider- 
able a  power  to  leave  in  their  rear,  and  they  made 
the  capital  mistake  of  attempting  to  force  her  into 
the  alliance,  proposing  to  dethrone  Ahaz  and  set  up 
a  foreign  king  who  would  serve  the  allied  interests,^ 
The  war  dragged  along  for  a  considerable  time,  and 
at  first,  naturally  enough,  Judah  suffered  severely.  It 
is  true  that  our  knowledge  of  the  war  is  very  limited,^ 
but  when  we  are  told  that  "  his  heart  and  the  heart 
of  his  people  shook  as  the  trees  of  the  forest  shake 
with  the  wind,"^  it  means  a  good  deal. 

Ahaz  was  not  indifferent  to  the  danger,  but  his 
method  of  meeting  it  was  certain  to  bring  him  face 
to  face  with  a  still  graver  peril  later  on.    He  made  an 

^  Sayce  supposes  that  Pekah  was  anxious  to  overthrow  the  Davidic 
dynasty  and  rule  over  all  Israel ;  the  forcing  of  Judah  into  the  alliance 
was  of  the  nature  of  an  appeal  to  the  patriotic  sentiments  of  the  people 
{H.C.M.,  p.  401).  The  Syrians  and  Israelites  were  quite  free  at  this 
time  (735  B.C.)  to  make  elaborate  preparations  for  war,  because  the 
annals  of  Tiglath-Pileser  show  that  he  was  busily  engaged  in  a  campaign 
in  the  North. 

2  Besides  this  reference  in  Isaiah,  we  have  the  accounts  of  the  war 
in  2  Kings  xv.  37,  xvi.  5-9 ;  2  Chron.  xxviii.  5-18.  Hostilities 
apparently  began  in  the  closing  part  of  Jotham's  reign  (2  Kings  xv.  37). 
Chronicles  says  nothing  of  an  alliance  against  Judah,  but  says  that 
Jahveh  sent  Syria  against  Ahaz,  and  that  "he  was  delivered  into  the 
hand  of  the  king  of  Israel."  We  read  that  Pekah  slew  120,000  Judeans 
in  one  day,  "  because  they  had  forsaken  Jahveh,"  and  took  200,000 
prisoners,  who  were  released,  however,  at  the  solicitation  of  Oded  the 
prophet.  This  story  can  scarcely  be  reconciled  with  the  reference  in 
Isaiah  ;  but  there  may  be  a  germ  of  historical  truth,  as  Winckler 
suggests,  especially  in  the  representation  of  the  overwhelming  defeat  of 
the  Judeans,  which  we  may  place  in  the  early  stages  of  the  war. 

'  Isa.  vii.  2. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         215 

alliance  directly  with  the  common  enemy.^  By  pay- 
ing tribute  to  Assyria  he  expected  to  secure  so 
vigorous  an  attack  on  the  North  that  both  Syria  and 
Ephraim  would  find  occupation  for  their  arms  in 
self-defence.  It  was  this  alliance  with  Assyria  that 
Isaiah  tried  so  hard  to  prevent,  though  his  efforts 
were  unhappily  in  vain.  He  tried  to  persuade  the 
king  that  he  exaggerated  the  danger.  The  message 
with  which  Jahveh  sent  him  to  meet  the  king  in  the 
highway  by  the  fuller's  field  ^  was  one  of  confidence  : 
"  Be  wary  and  keep  thyself  calm ;  fear  not,  neither 
let  thy  heart  be  faint,  because  of  these  two  fag-ends 
of  smoking  fire  brands."  ^  The  allied  powers,  seem- 
ingly mighty  as  they  are,  have  reached  the  end  of 
their  strength.  They  are  burnt  out  like  smoking 
brands,  and  can  never  again  be  fanned  into  effective 
flame.  Therefore  the  prophet  could  pronounce  with 
great  positiveness  his  oracle  of  God  :  "  Thus  saith 
the  Lord  Jahveh,  it  shall  not  stand,  neither  shall  it 
come  to  pass."  * 

Ahaz  would  not  believe,  therefore  he  would  not  be 
established.^  Declining  to  believe,  the  king  failed  to 
take  the  steps  whereby  establishment  was  possible,  and 
on  the  contrary  took  the  steps  by  which  it  was  made 
impossible.  In  vain  did  the  prophet  plead  that  Ahaz 
should  ask  the  message  to  be  confirmed  by  a  sign. 
The  king  was  too  confident  of  the  success  of  his  own 


^  2  Kings  xvi.  7-9  ;  2  Chron.  xxviii.  16-20. 

"^  Ahaz  was  expecting  the  siege  which  is  mentioned  in  Isa.  vii.    i, 
2  Kings  xvi.  5,  and  was  looking  after  the  water  supply. 

*  Isa.  vii.  4 ;  for  the  most  part,  Cheyne's  rendering  in  Poly.  Bib. 

*  Isa.  vii.  7.  *  Isa.  vii.  9. 


2i6  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

schemes  to  be  willing  to  modify  them  to  suit  a  plan 
of  God.  On  account  of  this  fatal  policy  God  would 
give  a  child  as  a  sign  of  two  things,  one  the  confirm- 
ing of  the  prophet's  word :  "  Before  the  child  shall 
know  to  refuse  the  evil  and  choose  the  good,  the  land 
whose  two  kings  thou  dreadest  shall  be  forsaken";^ 
the  other  to  point  out  the  ominous  outlook  for  Judah  : 
"  Jahveh  will  bring  upon  thee,  and  upon  thy  people, 
and  upon  thy  father's  house,  days  that  have  not  come 
from  the  day  that  Ephraim  departed  from  Judah — 
even  the  king  of  Assyria."  ^  Judah  will  suffer  the 
worst  fate  which  has  befallen  her  since  the  great 
schism  which  left  her  an  isolated  and  petty  folk. 
And  that  disaster  will  be  the  direct  consequence  of 
Ahaz's  efforts  to  save  the  State.  Isaiah  could  see 
that  Assyria  needed  no  urging  from  Judah  to  coerce 
her  rebellious  subjects,  and  that  Ahaz's  offering  of 
tribute  would  excite  the  cupidity  of  that  empire,  so 
that  it  would  never  rest  until  it  had  drained  Judah's 
resources  to  the  utmost. 

Isaiah  was  powerless  to  do  more  than  advise,  and 
Ahaz  was  willing  enough  that  the  prophet  should 
give  counsel  as  long  as  he  could  shape  the  policy  of 
the  State  to  suit  his  will.  The  king  did  not  interfere 
with  the  prophet's  freedom  of  speech,  even  though  he 
repudiated  his  advice.  Ahaz  lived  long  enough  to 
see  that  the  prophet  was  right ;  Assyria  easily  put 
down  the  coalition  and  reduced  the  northern  peoples 

^  Isa.  vii.  i6. 

^  Cheyne  regards  this  whole  verse  as  a  gloss,  and  the  closing  words 
"the  king  of  Assyria"  as  a  gloss  to  a  gloss.  Whether  added  by  a 
later  hand  or  not,  the  king  of  Assyria  is  rightly  named  as  the  source  of 
danger. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         217 

to  a  more  complete  subjection  than  before.^  Judah, 
too,  became  a  vassal  state,^  and  the  annual  tribute 
became  not  only  a  burden,  but  a  constant  source  of 
danger.  For  the  people  then,  as  well  as  later,  were 
sure  to  become  restless  under  a  system  of  tribute  to 
Caesar,  and  the  cessation  of  payment  at  any  time 
would  bring  about  an  Assyrian  invasion.  From  this 
act  of  Ahaz  dates  the  long  series  of  troubles  which 
Judah  suffered  at  the  hands  of  the  empire  of  the 
Euphrates. 

It  is  but  natural  to  conjecture  what  would  have 
been  the  fate  of  Judah  if  Isaiah's  advice  had  been 
scrupulously  followed.  It  is  easy  to  see  the  disastrous 
consequences  of  disregarding  the  prophet's  vision,  and, 
while  knowledge  fails,  I  think  it  not  impossible  to 
estimate  the  results  had  better  counsels  prevailed. 
For  Judah  had  these  two  leading  sources  of  safety, 
always  good  in  perilous  times  for  the  individual 
or  the  nation,  isolation  and  obscurity.  It  is  always 
true  that  "death  loves  a  shining  mark,"  and  Judah  was 
not  very  brilliant  among  the  nations  of  the  world  at 
that  time.  By  her  course  of  action  she  removed 
these  protections.  Otherwise  it  seems  clear  that  she 
might,  at  all  events,  have  escaped  Assyrian  greed, 
and  certainly  have  persisted  much  longer  than  she 
did. 

It  is  impossible  to  ignore  a  radically  different  view 
of  the  history  of  this  period,  which  may  be  found 

^  See  K.A.T},  p.  55  f.,  264  f.  According  to  Tiglath-pileser's 
annals,  only  the  city  of  Samaria  was  left  to  Pekah. 

2  The  Chronicler  says,  ' '  Tiglath-pilneser  king  of  Assyria  came 
unto  him,  and  distressed  him,  and  strengthened  him  not "  (2  Chron. 
xxviii.  20). 


2i8  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

briefly  stated  by  VVinckler.^  Judah  had  long  been 
the  vassal  of  Israel,  and  so  indirectly  was  under 
Assyria.  When  Israel  resolved  to  throw  off  the 
yoke  in  conjunction  with  Syria,  Judah  was  forced 
to  choose  between  rebellion  against  Israelite  sove- 
reignty and  direct  alliance  with  Assyria.  Ahaz  saw 
that  the  allies  would  be  crushed  as  soon  as  Tiglath- 
pileser  appeared  on  the  scene,  and  he  elected  to  be 
on  the  side  of  the  heavy  battalions.  He  had  hopes 
that,  as  a  reward  for  his  fidelity,  the  ancient  dominions 
of  the  house  of  David  might  be  restored  to  him. 
This  interpretation  of  the  history  sets  Ahaz's  action 
in  quite  a  different  light.  If  that  were  the  condition 
of  things,  Ahaz's  choice  would  have  been  pre- 
eminently wise,  and  Isaiah's  attitude  quite  inex- 
plicable. For  it  is  plain  that  Isaiah  condemned 
the  policy  of  Ahaz.^  There  seems  to  be  no  sufficient 
evidence  for  Winckler's  statement :  "  The  relation  of 
Judah  to  Israel  had  finally  become  that  of  a  vassal," 
though  it  is  true  that  Israel  had  at  times  held  domina- 
tion over  the  sister  kingdom. 

In  taking  up  Isaiah's  political  activity  during  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah,  we  are  confronted  with  such  wide 
difference  of  expert  opinion  that  we  feel  some  sym- 
pathy with  the  old  demand  of  conservatism,  that  the 
critics  should  agree  among  themselves  before  they 
attempt  to  convert  others  to  their  belief.  Hezekiah's 
accession  is  placed  all  the  way  from  728  to  714  B.C.,^ 

1  K.A.T?,  p.  265  f. 

2  Not  his  refusal  to  ally  with  Israel,  but  his  overtures  to  Assyria ; 
Isaiah  wanted  to  preserve  the  status  quo. 

^  The  earliest  date  is  based  on  2  Kings  xviii.  lo,  where  it  is  said 
that  Samaria  was  taken  in  the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah.     As  Samaria 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         219 

and  the  embassy  of  Merodach-baladan  is  by  some 
put  as  early  as  720  B.C.,  by  others  as  late  as  701  B.C. 
The  divergent  views  of  competent  scholars  in  this 
case,  however,  are  not  due  to  any  vagaries  of 
opinion  on  their  part,  but  to  the  uncertainty  of  the 
data,  and  we  must  admit  that  the  chronology  of  the 
period  is  an  unsolved  problem.  Our  study  will  not 
be  seriously  affected,  however,  by  ignorance  as  to  the 
date  of  the  particular  events  in  the  life  of  the  prophet 
which  we  shall  consider. 

The  Chronicler  tells  us  expressly  that  Hezekiah's 
reformation  began  in  the  first  month  of  his  first  year.^ 
In  2  Kings  also  the  reform  is  placed  at  the  beginning 
of  his  reign.2  In  Jeremiah  xxvi.  18  f.  the  reform  of 
Hezekiah  is  traced  to  the  influence  of  Micah.  The 
prophecy  of  Micah  certainly  belongs  to  the  time 
before  the  fall  of  Samaria,  so  that,  according  to  the 
earliest  Biblical  evidence,  Hezekiah  reached  the 
throne  before  722,  and  his  reformation  belongs  to 
the  early  days  of  his  reign.  The  Chronicler  describes 
the  reforms  at  great  length,  and  makes  them  chiefly 
of  a  ritual  character.  According  to  Kings,  he  "re- 
moved the  high  places,  brake  the  pillars,  and  cut 
down  the  Asherah ;  and  he  brake  in  pieces  the 
brazen  serpent  that  Moses  had  made."^ 

Discredit    has   been    placed    upon   this   story    by 

fell  in  722,  Hezekiah  would  have  come  to  the  throne  in  728  or  727. 
2  Kings  xviii.  13  places  the  invasion  of  Sennacherib,  which  belongs  to 
the  year  701  B.C.,  in  Hezekiah's  fourteenth  year,  hence  his  accession 
would  be  placed  715  or  714.  Kittel  follows  Dillmann  in  placing 
Hezekiah's  succession  at  yig. 

^  2  Chron.  xxix.  3.  ^2  Kin^s  xviii.  4. 

"*  2  Kings  xviii.  4. 


220  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

various  scholars,  some  questioning  the  reformation 
altogether,  others  placing  it  as  late  as  the  invasion  of 
Sennacherib.  But  there  is  good  reason  for  holding 
that  the  Biblical  account  is  in  the  main  correct. 
Hezekiah  differed  radically  from  his  father  Ahaz,  in 
that  he  was  a  faithful  worshipper  of  Jahveh.  What 
more  natural  than  that  upon  his  coronation  he 
should  sweep  away  the  corruptions  which  Ahaz  had 
introduced  in  the  temple  worship?  The  details  in 
Chronicles  are  not  to  be  pressed,  and  even  the  brief 
record  in  Kings  may  be  far  from  accurate,  but  there 
is  every  reason  to  hold  that  Hezekiah  began  his  rule 
with  just  such  a  repentance  of  the  evils  which  he 
found  as  the  elders  of  Jehoiakim's  time  attributed 
to  him.  Someone  has  said  that  there  is  scarcely  an 
event  in  the  Old  Testament  better  attested  than 
Hezekiah's  reformation.  The  testimony  of  Jeremiah 
xxvi.  i8  f.  cannot  be  disregarded. 

But  is  Isaiah's  influence  not  traceable  in  Heze- 
kiah's reform  ?i  Was  it  wholly  due  to  Micah,  as  we 
should  infer  from  the  statement  in  Jeremiah?  It 
would  be  very  strange  if  the  country  prophet  led  the 
king  to  amend  the  royal  ways  and  the  prophet  of 
the  court  produced  no  effect  at  all.  For  Isaiah  had 
been  active  for  more  than  ten  years  when  Hezekiah 
ascended  the  throne.^  In  the  early  prophecies  of 
Isaiah  there  is  no  such  specific  utterance  with  which 
to  connect  the  reform  as  in  Micah  iii.  12.     Moreover, 

^  Kent  says  that  the  religious  reformation  under  Hezekiah  was  one 
of  the  fruits  of  the  influence  of  the  prophetic  party  under  Isaiah's 
leadership  {History,  ii.  p.  157). 

^  Isaiah's  call  was  in  740  or  738 ;  Hezekiah's  accession,  728 
to  714. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         221 

if  the  reform  actually  took  the  line  indicated  by  the 
historians,  it  would  command  little  interest  from  the 
great  prophet,  who  felt  that  the  breaking  down  of 
Asherahs  was  but  a  feeble  attempt  at  obedience  to 
the  will  of  God.  At  the  same  time  Hezekiah  must 
have  been  familiar  with  the  ringing  utterances  of  the 
seer  who  had  long  been  a  conspicuous  figure  in 
Jerusalem,  and  his  resolve  to  follow  the  counsel  of 
the  God  of  his  people  must  have  been  largely  due  to 
Isaiah.  Isaiah  may  have  inspired  the  reformation, 
even  though  it  did  not  follow  a  course  which  could 
command  his  approval. 

Isaiah's  influence  seems  to  have  been  potent 
enough  to  save  Judah  from  disaster  at  the  time  of 
Sargon's  invasion  in  711  B.C.,  a  memorable  event 
which  now  claims  our  attention.  Yet  it  is  somewhat 
difficult  to  draw  the  limits  of  Isaiah's  work  in 
connexion  with  this  Assyrian  king.  A  few  years 
ago  Sargon  was  quite  unknown,  save  for  a  mention 
in  Isaiah  xx.  Since  the  discovery  of  his  own  account 
of  the  attack  upon  Ashdod,  there  has  been  a  tendency 
to  connect  many  of  Isaiah's  Assyrian  prophecies 
with  this  invasion.  There  are  some  things,  however, 
which  are  clear.  Hezekiah  had  fallen  heir  to  an 
annual  tribute  to  the  Assyrian  king.  Some  of  the 
states  of  Canaan  proposed  to  throw  off  the  yoke,  and 
Hezekiah  was  doubtless  urged  to  cast  in  his  fortunes 
with  them.  Isaiah  laboured  to  prevent  this  suicidal 
course.  His  chief  object  seems  to  have  been  to  show 
the  vanity  of  the  expected  aid  from  Egypt.  He 
stripped  himself  of  his  prophetic  robes,^  and  went 
^  See  p.  70, 


222  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

about  for  three  years  in  the  garb  of  a  captive,^  as 
a  sign  of  the  humiliation  which  Assyria  would  inflict 
upon  Egypt.2  This  bold  step  of  the  prophet  did  not 
apparently  preserve  the  absolute  loyalty  of  Hezekiah, 
for  he  seems  to  have  stopped  the  payment  of  tribute. 
But  it  did  apparently  restrain  him  from  any  active 
part  in  the  rebellion,  so  that  Judah  suffered  no  con- 
sequences other  than  the  resumption  of  the  tribute 
money. 

The  Egyptians  had  doubtless  inspired  this  revolt. 
The  pacification  of  Canaan  by  the  Assyrians  was 
always  a  menace  to  them,  and  they  were  ever  sowing 
seeds  of  rebellion.  Hezekiah  was  certainly  involved 
to  a  certain  extent,  for  Sargon  mentions  Philistia, 
Judah,  Edom,  and  Moab  along  with  Ashdod.^  But 
when  the  Assyrian  general,  the  Tartan,  or  Turtan, 
appeared,*  the  allies  seem  to  have  left  Ashdod  to  its 
fate.  It  seems  clear  that  Hezekiah  took  no  part 
in  the  actual  struggle,  much  as  he  may  have  hoped 
from  its  outcome,  though  he  had  probably  stopped 
the  payment  of  his  annual  tribute.  It  was  doubtless 
Isaiah's  influence  which  kept  the  king  quiet.  For 
the  prophet  saw  the  hopelessness  of  a  contest  with 
Sargon,  and  the  untrustworthiness  of  the  Egyptian 
promise.  He  seems  to  have  regarded  the  case  as 
very  serious  though.  Enormous  pressure  must  have 
been  exerted  to  bring  Hezekiah  into  the  struggle. 
Isaiah    adopted    a    bold    course    to    counteract    the 

^  From   this    statement    and   from    the  varying  Assyrian    records 

Winckler  draws  the  conclusion  that  the  revolt  lasted  three  years 
{K.A.T:\  p.  65). 

"^  Isa.  XX.  '  K.A.T.^,  p.  70.  *  Isa,  xx.  i. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         223 

anti-Assyrian  influence.  During  the  three  years^ 
of  the  revolt  he  went  about  the  streets  of  Jerusalem 
"naked  and  barefoot"^  i.e.  in  the  garb  of  a  captive 
slave,  as  a  sign  of  the  fate  that  would  befall  Egypt^ 
and  Ethiopia  at  the  hand  of  the  power  against  which 
they  had  stirred  up  revolt. 

The  wisdom  of  the  prophet's  course  was  shown 
from  the  completeness  of  Sargon's  suppression  of 
the  uprising,  and  the  reward  of  his  unpleasant 
personal  sacrifice — for  the  dress  of  a  slave  must  have 
been  a  disagreeable  garb  for  one  of  his  standing 
— was  found  in  his  saving  Judah  from  an  actual 
invasion,  with  all  its  accompanying  disasters. 

The  embassy  of  Merodach-baladan^  will  next  en- 
gage our  attention.  In  the  Biblical  sources  we  have 
the  record  in  2  Kings  xx.  12-21,  and  the  parallel 
passage  in  Isaiah  xxxix.    We  have  also  some  further 

^  Sargon's  annals  place  the  invasion  in  the  eleventh  year  of  his  reign 
(711  B.C.);  the  fragments  of  a  clay  prism  date  it  in  the  ninth  year, 
Winckler  explains  the  discrepancy  by  supposing  the  latter  to  be  the 
date  at  which  the  revolt  began  and  the  former  its  ending  ^K.A.T.^, 
p.  69  f.).     This  agrees  exactly  with  Isaiah's  three  years. 

'  Isa.  XX.  3. 

'  Winckler  holds  that  Isaiah's  reference  is  not  to  the  empires 
of  the  Nile,  but  to  a  Musri  and  Kush  in  Western  Arabia.  Many  similar 
references  are  explained  in  the  same  way.  Rogers  says  that  his 
"suggestions  concerning  Musri  are  exceedingly  fruitful,  and  many  are 
undoubtedly  correct,  but  he  has  carried  the  matter  too  far  in  attempting 
to  eliminate  Egypt  almost  entirely  and  to  supplant  it  with  Musri " 
{Hist,  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  ii.  p.  144  n.).  Winckler's  views  may 
be  found  in  K.A.  T.^,  p.  70  f.  Hommel  seems  to  have  made  the  same 
suggestion  independently;  see  Hilprecht's  Explorations  in  Bible  Lands, 
p.  743  ;  cf.  Hommel's  art.  "Assyria,"  Hastings'  Bib.  Diet. 

■*  In  2  Kings  xx.  12  the  name  is  given  as  Berodach-baladan. 
Isa.  xxxix.  I  has  the  correct  form,  as  shown  by  the  inscriptions,  in 
which  the  name  is  Marduk-abal-iddina. 


224  THE    HEBREW    PROPHET 

light  from  Assyrian  sources.  From  these  we  learn 
that  this  prince  took  possession  of  Southern  Baby- 
lonia, and  in  721  B.C.  was  proclaimed  king  of 
Babylon.  Babylonia  had  been  an  Assyrian  province, 
and  Sargon  was  not  likely  to  lose  it  without  a  bitter 
struggle.  But  his  first  battle  was  unsuccessful,  for 
Merodach-baladan  was  supported  by  a  number  of 
allies,  especially  the  Elamites  and  Aramaeans.  In 
710,  however,  after  the  suppression  of  the  uprisings 
in  the  West  and  North,  some  of  which  the  usurper 
may  have  helped  to  instigate,  Sargon  turned  south- 
ward and  completely  routed  his  enemy  and  regained 
complete  control  of  Babylon. 

In  702,  when  Sargon  had  been  succeeded  by 
Sennacherib,  Babylonia  was  once  more  loosened 
from  its  Assyrian  control,  and  the  clever  Chaldean 
came  forth  again  from  the  southern  marshes  and  set 
himself  up  as  king.  In  order  to  maintain  his  posi- 
tion, it  was  essential  that  he  keep  the  Assyrian  king 
busily  employed  elsewhere.  To  do  this  it  was  only 
necessary  to  stir  up  rebellion  among  the  many 
peoples  over  whom  the  Assyrian  ruled,  and  who 
were  ever  zealous  for  a  blow  to  regain  their  lost 
freedom.  On  this  occasion  Merodach-baladan's  rule 
was  short,  for  Sennacherib  ignored  for  the  time  the 
uprising  in  the  West,  and  turned  his  army  towards 
Babylon.  His  success  was  quick  and  complete. 
After  a  rule  of  but  nine  months,^  the  Chaldean  was 
finally  overthrown.^ 

The  embassy  to  Hezekiah  would  fit  in  very  well 

^  Or  six  months  according  to  Winckler. 

*  See  Rogers,  Hht.  of  Baby  I.  and  Assyr.,  ii.  pp.  152  ff,  187  ft". 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         225 

with  any  of  these  periods,  Winckler  places  it  in 
720  B.C.,^  Sayce  fixes  it  at  711  B.C.,-  while  Rogers 
and  others  date  it  in  702.  The  book  of  Kings 
places  this  embassy  after  the  invasion  of  Sennacherib, 
701  B.C.  But  it  also  says  that  Hezekiah  lived  fifteen 
years  after  his  sickness,  in  connexion  with  which 
Merodach-baladan  sent  the  embassy ;  this  would 
carry  his  reign  down  to  686  B.C.  To  say  nothing 
of  the  uncertainty  of  the  numbers  in  the  text,  we 
are  in  doubt  about  the  limits  of  Hezekiah's  reign. 
On  the  whole,  the  last-named  date,  702  B.C.,  seems 
the  most  probable.^ 

The  only  ostensible  purpose  of  the  embassy  was 
to  congratulate  Hezekiah  upon  his  recovery  from 
sickness.  But  apparently  the  king  was  apprised  of 
the  real  purpose  of  the  visit.  For  the  mere  con- 
gratulations would  offer  no  excuse  for  his  exhibit  of 
his  military  resources.  We  are  told  that  "  Hezekiah 
hearkened  unto  them,*  and  showed  them  all  the 
house  of  his  precious  things,  the  silver,  and  the  gold, 
and  the  spices,  and  the  precious  oil,  and  the  house  of 
his  armour,  and  all  that  was  found  in  his  treasures  : 
there  was  nothing  in  his  house,  nor  in  all  his  dominion, 
that  Hezekiah  showed  them  not."^    From  this  display 

1  K.A.  T.\  72,  270  f. 

2  H.C.M.,  424  ff;  Hastings'  Bible  Diet.,  iii.  347. 

'  The  most  serious  objection  to  this  date  is  the  shortness  of  Mero- 
dach-baladan's  reign  at  that  time,  but  nine  months  at  most.  If  702  is 
the  correct  date,  the  embassy  must  have  gone  back  to  a  defeated  and 
deposed  monarch. 

■*  So  Isa.  xxxix.  2  ;  this  is  undoubtedly  the  correct  text,  and  has  the 
support  of  the  Greek  versions.  The  difference  in  Hebrew  is  only  that 
of  a  single  letter. 

^  2  Kings  XX.  13. 


226  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

it  is  plain  that  the  real  object  of  the  king  was  to 
show  the  envoys  that  he  would  be  no  mean  ally  in 
case  of  war. 

How  Isaiah's  suspicions  were  aroused  we  cannot 
tell.  It  would  be  impossible  to  keep  the  presence 
of  these  strangers  a  secret,  but  Hezekiah  seems  to 
have  tried  to  conceal  their  real  purpose.  There  is 
a  foreboding  sternness  in  the  prophet's  questions  : 
"  What  said  these  men  ?  and  from  whence  came  they 
unto  thee?  What  have  they  seen  in  thy  house?" 
Hezekiah  answers  all  the  questions  but  the  first ;  that 
matter  he  regards  as  his  secret.  But  it  was  not 
really  essential  to  the  keen  prophet ;  he  knows  the 
state  of  affairs  in  Babylon,  and  he  knows  that 
Merodach-baladan  would  not  trouble  himself  about 
a  Judean  king's  sickness  or  recovery.  He  perceives 
that  the  king  has  virtually  allied  himself  with  this 
distant  power,  and  would  revolt  against  his  suzerain, 
and  he  hastens  to  point  out  the  disastrous  con- 
sequences of  Hezekiah's  folly :  "  The  days  come, 
that  all  that  is  in  thy  house,  and  that  which  thy 
fathers  have  laid  up  in  store  unto  this  day,  shall  be 
carried  to  Babylon."  ^ 

Isaiah's  prediction  has  received  many  interpreta- 
tions. By  some  it  is  regarded  as  a  clear  vision  of  what 
actually  took  place  more  than  a  century  later,  when 
the  last  treasures  were  taken  to  Babylon.  But  that 
would  make  the  prophecy  meaningless  to  Hezekiah. 
Moreover,  Isaiah  also  says,  "  Of  thy  sons  that  shall 
issue  from  thee,  whom  thou  shalt  beget,  shall  they  take 
away :  and  they  shall  be  eunuchs  in  the  palace  of  the 

^  2  Kings  XX.  17. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         227 

king  of  Babylon."  ^  This  is  too  specific  to  refer  to 
Hezekiah's  remote  descendants.  Then,  further,  the 
prophecy  is  aimed  at  the  king's  folly  in  meditating 
rebellion,  whereas  the  older  view  would  make  the 
display  of  his  treasures  to  a  greedy  potentate  a  sin. 

Again,  the  prediction  is  explained  as  a  vaticinium 
ex  eventu}  But  it  seems  to  me  unlikely  that  the 
prediction  was  wholly  manufactured  to  agree  with 
the  historic  facts,  though  it  might  easily  be  that  the 
form  was  modified  in  conformity  with  the  event. 
Isaiah  may  have  named  Assyria,  and  the  historian 
who  wrote  this  part  of  his  life  changed  the  name  to 
Babylon.^ 

In  all  ages  and  among  all  peoples  the  death  of  an 
absolute  monarch  has  been  a  matter  of  great  moment 
to  his  subjects,  whether  native  or  foreign.  If  the 
deceased  king  had  been  a  successful  conqueror,  there 
was  always  the  hope  that  his  successor  might  prove 
more  feeble,  and  so  the  vassal  states  be  able  to  regain 
their  freedom.  Sargon  had  shown  himself  an  able 
general,  and  had  made  good  the  claims  of  his  pre- 
decessors to  a  great  empire.  Much  of  it  was  held 
together,  however,  simply  by  the  might  of  his  brawny 
arms.  Consequently,  when  the  great  conqueror  died, 
in  705,  exultant  hopes  were  raised  among  the  sub- 
jugated peoples  that  they  would  be  strong  enough  to 

^  Isa.  xxxix.  7. 

2  Seef.^.  art.  "Hezekiah,"  Hastings' ^/<J/£  ZJ/c/". ,  ii.  378. 

2  There  is  another  possible  explanation.  Babylon  was  subject  to 
Assyria.  Transported  captives  were  sent  frequently  to  the  colonies,  and 
Isaiah  may  have  expected  Sennacherib  to  send  the  prisoners  to  Baby- 
lonia. But  it  is  only  by  misunderstanding  prophecy  that  one  can  press 
literally  a  prophetic  prediction. 


228  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

throw  off  the  yoke.  It  is  perfectly  possible  that 
Isaiah  xiv.  28-32  shows  the  great  expectations  of  the 
Philistines  at  this  crisis,  and  the  prophet's  assurance 
that  their  hopes  would  soon  be  dashed  to  the 
ground.^ 

However  that  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  Sennacherib 
ascended  the  throne  to  find  himself  confronted  with 
rebellion  in  many  of  the  remoter  parts  of  his  empire. 
Probably  as  being  the  least  important,  he  neglected 
the  West  for  a  few  years  and  addressed  himself  to  the 
graver  problems  in  other  parts  of  his  wide  realm. 

The  nations  of  the  West  took  advantage  of  the 
absence  of  the  Assyrian  armies,  and  combined  in  a 
seemingly  formidable  revolt.  Padi,  the  king  of  Ekron, 
appears  to  have  been  the  only  one  to  remain  loyal, 
and  he  was  dethroned  and  sent  to  Hezekiah  as  a 
prisoner.  That  fact,  coupled  with  the  embassy  of 
Merodach-baladan,  would  indicate  that  Hezekiah  was 
the  recognised  head  of  the  revolting  allies.  Egypt 
also  contributed  to  the  spirit  of  rebellion  by  lavish 
promises  of  aid.  Against  this  reliance  upon  the 
empire  of  the  Nile,  the  great  prophet  set  his  face  like 
a  flint.  He  was  utterly  opposed  to  the  rebellion  ;  for 
he  knew  that  the  Assyrians  had  not  lost  their  power, 
that  an  attempt  to  throw  off  the  yoke  would  only 
fasten  it  tighter,  and  that  no  real  aid  could  be 
expected  from  the  Nile.  In  chapters  xxx.,  xxxi. 
of  his  book  we  have  a  record  of  his  zealous  efforts 

^  The  serpent's  tooth  would  be  Sargon,  and  the  fiery  flying  serpent 
would  be  Sennacherib,  his  successor.  Driver  inclines  to  this  view 
{L.O.T.^f  p.  213).  Cheyne  accepts  the  date  of  the  title  ("the  year 
that  King  Ahaz  died"),  and  refers  both  expressions  to  Sargon  (Poly- 
chrome Bible,  p.  149). 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         229 

to  preserve  the  fidelity  of  Judah  to  the  power  which 
held  her  in  subjection. 

"Woe  to  the  rebellious  children,"  he  cries  in 
Jahveh's  name,  "  that  take  counsel,  but  not  of  Me : 
and  that  make  a  league,  but  not  of  My  Spirit,  that 
they  may  add  sin  to  sin  ;  that  set  out  to  go  down 
into  Egypt,  and  have  not  asked  at  My  mouth  ;  to 
strengthen  themselves  in  the  strength  of  Pharaoh, 
and  to  take  refuge  in  the  shadow  of  Egypt !  There- 
fore shall  the  strength  of  Pharaoh  be  your  shame, 
and  the  refuge  in  the  shadow  of  Egypt  your  con- 
fusion."^ 

The  anti-Assyrian  party  was  very  strong  at  this 
period.  The  Hebrews  were  ever  galled  by  a  foreign 
domination,  which  seemed  to  fly  in  the  face  of  the 
Divine  promises  to  their  forefathers,  and  the  appeal 
to  a  religious  and  patriotic  sentiment  never  gained 
adherents  more  easily  than  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah. 
The  revolters  were  so  sure  of  their  position  that  they 
attempted  to  silence  opposition.  This  was  the  only 
time  when  Isaiah  was  constrained  to  cry  out  against 
the  attempt  to  put  down  the  truth  by  violent  means. 
The  lying  children  said  to  the  seers,  "  See  not,"  and 
to  the  prophets,  "  prophesy  not  unto  us  right  things, 
speak  unto  us  smooth  things,"  i.e.  those  which  will 
arouse  no  opposition,^  the  invariable  resource  of  those 
who  are  persistently  in  the  wrong. 

Isaiah  held  that  the  revolt  against  Assyria  was 
rebellion  against  the  Lord,  because  it  was  contrary 
to  His  will ;  not  that  Jahveh  was  indifferent  to  the 
national   distress,    for    He    would    save    His    people 

'  Isa.  XXX.  1-3.  ^  Isa.  xxx.  10. 


230  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

in  His  own  way  and  in  His  own  time.  The  saving 
of  the  nation  could  not  be  accomplished  by  "the 
Egyptians,  who  are  men,  and  not  God  ;  and  their 
horses  flesh,  and  not  spirit,"  and  who  shall  stumble 
in  their  helping  even  as  those  helped  shall  fall,  when 
Jahveh  shall  stretch  out  His  mighty  hand.^  For  that 
hand  will  be  stretched  out  and  the  Assyrian  will 
struggle  in  vain  against  it :  "  as  birds  hovering,  so 
will  Jahveh  of  hosts  protect  Jerusalem  :  He  will  pro- 
tect and  deliver  it.  He  will  pass  over  and  preserve 
it.  .  .  .  The  Assyrian  shall  fall  by  the  sword,  not  of 
a  man  ;  and  the  sword,  not  of  men,  shall  devour 
him.  .  .  .  His  rock  shall  pass  away  by  reason  of 
terror,  and  his  princes  shall  be  dismayed  at  the 
ensign,  saith  Jahveh,  whose  fire  is  in  Zion,  and  His 
furnace  in  Jerusalem."^ 

The  movement  against  Assyria  was  popular  among 
the  people,  was  more  than  countenanced  by  the  king, 
and  naturally  enrolled  among  its  supporters  some 
of  the  chief  officers  of  the  State.  There  was  one, 
however,  whose  support  was  for  some  reason  so 
obnoxious  to  Isaiah  that  he  for  once,  and  once  only, 
indulges  in  personal  denunciation.  He  made  a 
vigorous  attack  upon  Shebna,  though  the  latter 
occupied  a  commanding  position  in  the  king's  house- 
hold. This  position  was  that  of  steward  or  treasurer 
over  the  house.^     He  was  a  foreigner  apparently,  but 

^  Isa.  xxxi.  3.  ^  Isa.  xxxi.  5-9. 

•*  This  office  had  become  an  important  one ;  it  may  have  been 
originally  a  minor  domestic  place,  but  in  royal  households  such  offices 
increase  their  powers.  Shebna  was  an  important  figure,  and  evidently 
possessed  much  wealth.  See  further  art.  "Shebna,"  Hastings' ^z3/£ 
Diet. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         231 

was  taking  up  permanent  citizenship  in  Judah,  and 
even  building  for  himself,  as  was  the  custom  of  the 
great,  a  tomb  in  which  his  body  should  lie.^ 

Shebna's  policy  and  influence  were  so  odious  in 
Isaiah's  eyes,  that  his  language  against  him  is  very 
strong :  "  Jahveh,  like  a  strong  man,  will  hurl  thee 
away  violently :  yea  He  will  wrap  thee  up  closely. 
He  will  surely  wind  thee  round  and  round,  and  toss 
thee  like  a  ball  into  a  large  country  ;  there  shalt  thou 
die,  and  there  shall  be  the  chariots  of  thy  glory,  thou 
shame  2  of  thy  lord's  house."  ^ 

Isaiah  did  not  rest  with  denunciation  or  predic- 
tions of  disaster,  but  set  to  work  to  secure  Shebna's 
removal  from  office.  The  fact  that  he  was  able  to 
accomplish  his  object  and  to  name  Shebna's  successor 
indicates  that  our  prophet  was  speaking  with  intimate 
knowledge  of  the  purposes  of  the  court,  though 
doubtless  his  own  influence  had  contributed  largely 
to  the  minister's  downfall.  Surely  there  is  more  than 
an  ordinary  prophetic  declaration  in  the  threat : 
"  I  will  thrust  thee  from  thine  office ;  and  from  thy 
station  shalt  thou  be  pulled  down.  ...  I  will  call  My 
servant  Eliakim  the  son  of  Hilkiah :  and  I  will 
clothe  him  with  thy  robe,  and  strengthen  him  with 
thy  girdle,  and  I  will  commit  thy  authority  into  his 
hand."*  A  short  time  afterwards  Eliakim  the  son  of 
Hilkiah  held  the  office  of  steward  of  the  king's  house- 


^  Isa.  xxii.  16.  For  similar  cases  see  2  Sam.  xviii.  i8;  2  Chron, 
xvi,  14 ;  Matt,  xxvii.  60. 

-  From  this  term  it  may  be  that  Shebna  was  open  to  attack  on  the 
side  of  moral  character  as  well  as  political  policy. 

'  Isa.  xxii.  17  f.  *  Isa.  xxii.  19-21. 


232  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

hold.^  Isaiah  not  only  opposed  the  policy  of 
rebellion  against  Assyria  and  alliance  with  Egypt, 
but  he  used  his  power  for  the  overthrow  of  a  chief 
minister  and  apparently  chose  his  successor.  His 
influence  therefore  was  very  powerful  in  spite  of  his 
belonging  to  the  opposition. 

The  question  has  been  raised  as  to  whether  the 
prophet's  victory  was  real  or  only  apparent.  It  is 
clear  that  Eliakim  succeeded  Shebna  as  governor  of 
the  palace.  What  became  of  Shebna?  Was  Isaiah's 
prediction  fulfilled  that  he  would  be  cast  out  into 
another  foreign  land  and  die  there  ?  Along  with 
Eliakim,  when  he  was  sent  to  treat  with  the  Assyrian 
envoys,  was  Shebna  the  secretary?^  It  is  generally 
assumed  that  this  is  the  same  Shebna  whom  Isaiah 
had  driven  from  office,  and  the  degradation  is  ex- 
plained by  asserting  that  the  new  post  was  a  less 
important  one.^  But  we  know  so  little  concerning 
these  offices  that  we  can  scarcely  be  very  positive 
about  their  relative  consequence.  Moreover,  the  as- 
signment to  a  less  important  office  is  not  the  same 
punishment  as  exile  and  death,  and  so  would  not  be 
any  real  fulfilment  of  Isaiah's  prediction.  But  it 
seems  to  me  perfectly  possible  that  there  was  more 
than  one  Shebna  at  Jerusalem.  In  any  case,  we 
cannot  pronounce  the  prophecy  unfulfilled  even  if  the 
same  Shebna  holds  high  office  in   701.      Hezekiah 

^    2  Kings  xviii.  i8.  ^2  Kings  xviii.  i8. 

3  So  Cheyne,  Poly.  Bib.,  p.  159;  Driver,  L.O.T.^,  p.  218; 
Dillmann,  Jesaia,®  in  loc.  Kittel  says  very  truly  that  we  have  no 
ground  for  asserting  that  the  office  of  scribe  was  lower  than  that  of 
house  steward  {Kbnigsbiicher^  p.  282). 


RELATION    TO   THE   STATE         233 

must  have  looked  with  favour  upon  this  servile 
creature.  Yet  he  dare  not  wholly  disregard  the 
prophet's  attacks.  But  after  Shebna's  removal  from 
office,  and  the  consequent  quieting  of  the  clamour, 
the  king  could  easily  appoint  him  to  another  post. 
Isaiah's  desires  may  have  thus  been  thwarted  for  the 
time,  but  Shebna  was  not  dead  yet.  Even  though  he 
may  have  held  the  post  of  secretary  in  701,  it  does 
not  follow  that  he  ever  occupied  the  tomb  which  had 
been  so  much  concern  to  him.  Stevenson's  sugges- 
tion ^  that  Isaiah's  language  was  only  intended  as  a 
special  case  of  warning,  "  He  putteth  down  the  mighty 
from  their  seat,"  offers,  I  think,  one  of  the  less 
satisfactory  solutions.  We  know  that  Shebna  was 
degraded  from  office  at  the  prophet's  instigation  ;  we 
do  not  know  what  became  of  him  afterwards  ;  but 
Isaiah  certainly  accomplished  his  main  purpose, 
even  if  all  of  his  predictions  were  not  literally 
fulfilled. 

Perhaps  we  should  remember  that  a  Hebrew  pro- 
phet's "  shall "  is  often  equivalent  to  the  modern 
"ought."  Isaiah  would  thus  mean  that  the  shame- 
less minister  ought  to  be  exiled  and  die  in  disgrace. 
That  might  be  said  of  many  men  to-day  who  dis- 
grace the  high  offices  they  hold.  It  is  easy  to  cry 
out  that  they  ought  to  be  removed,  and  even  we  hear 
that  they  shall  be  relegated  to  other  spheres ;  but 
many  such  hopes  and  predictions  are  ever  unfulfilled. 

Isaiah  had  stood  strenuously  against  the  attempt 
to  overthrow  the  Assyrian  supremacy.  He  had 
opposed  all   Babylonian,  Egyptian,  and  Palestinian 

^  Hastings' ^/<J/<  iPzV/.,  art.  "Shebna." 


234  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

alliances.  He  believed  that  Judah  should  be  faithful 
to  the  oath  of  allegiance  which  she  had  taken/  and 
he  knew  that  Assyria  was  strong  enough  to  exact 
obedience.  In  the  early  part  of  Sennacherib's  in- 
vasion, the  prophet  was  probably  quiet.  He  saw  and 
the  people  could  see  the  abundant  fulfilling  of  his 
warnings.  Hezekiah  was  too  shrewd  to  need  a  seer 
to  cry  in  exultation,  "  I  told  you  so." 

For  the  Assyrian  king  was  everywhere  victorious 
when  at  last  he  invaded  the  West  in  701  B.C.  A 
single  great  leader  always  has  an  advantage  over  a 
coalition.  The  Assyrian  knew  how  to  press  that 
advantage,  and  succeeded  in  breaking  up  the  alliance 
so  as  to  deal  with  the  rebellious  peoples  in  detail. 
With  his  first  success  several  states,  fearing  the 
vengeance  of  the  king  and  wishing  to  avoid  the 
destruction  of  property  incident  to  an  invasion,  and 
being  quite  hopeless  of  successful  resistance,  were 
prompt  to  sue  for  peace  and  make  such  terms  as 
they  could  get.  Hezekiah  was  one  of  the  kings  who 
apparently  felt  that  he  had  gone  too  far  to  retreat, 
or  who  felt  that  he  could  resist  long  enough  at 
least  to  secure  better  terms  by  treaty  than  by  sur- 
render. The  Egyptian  forces  had  been  driven  back ; 
Ekron  had  paid  a  severe  penalty  for  its  deposition  of 
Padi,  an  Assyrian  appointee.  The  armies  then  in- 
vaded Judah.     Both  the  Bible^  and  the  inscriptions^ 

^  This  was  not  a  mere  principle  of  statecraft :  an  oath  taken  in  the 
name  of  Jahveh  could  not  be  lightly  broken,  even  though  the  bond  was 
galling. 

^  2  Kings  xviii.  f.  =Isa.  xxxvi.  f. 

^  An  English  translation  of  these  interesting  inscriptions  by  Rogers 
may  be  found  in  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  vol.  vi. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         235 

tell  the  disastrous  story.  Forty-six^  fortified  cities 
were  taken  and  annexed  to  other  provinces.  Jerusa- 
lem might  hold  out  a  long  time,  but  resistance  was 
not  likely  to  restore  the  lost  territory.  Judah  could 
not  afford  to  be  shorn  of  its  towns  ;  hence  the  king 
was  constrained  to  send  an  embassy  to  Sennacherib 
at  Lachish  to  make  a  treaty  of  peace.  His  message 
was  humble  enough  in  tone :  "  I  have  offended ; 
return  from  me :  that  which  thou  puttest  on  me  will 
I  bear." 2  The  Assyrian  imposed  a  fine  of  three 
hundred  talents  of  silver^  and  thirty  of  gold,  which 
Hezekiah  raised  only  by  emptying  both  the  royal 
and  the  sacred  treasuries,  and  by  stripping  off  the 
golden  ornaments  of  the  temple. 

Still  Sennacherib  was  not  satisfied.  He  seems  to 
have  thought  that  Jerusalem  was  now  so  weakened 
and  discouraged  that  it  would  offer  no  further  resist- 
ance, and  that  he  could  wreak  his  vengeance  upon 
its  people  as  he  had  upon  Ekron.  The  king  sent  his 
lieutenants  with  a  great  army  to  demand  the  sur- 
render of  the  city.  Hezekiah  was  in  a  sore  strait. 
The  great  army  before  the  city,  the  bold  challenge  of 
the  Assyrians,  the  appeal  to  the  people  against  the 
king,  all  tended  to  make  his  situation  desperate.  In 
his  distress  he  turns  to  the  very  one  whose  counsel 
he  had  so  long  disregarded,  Isaiah  the  prophet. 
Covered  with  sackcloth,  Eliakim,  Shebna,  and  the 

^  This  number  is  given  by  Sennacherib.  The  Bible  says  the  king  of 
Assyria  took  "  all  the  fortified  cities  of  Judah"  (2  Kings  xviii.  13). 

•^  2  Kings  xviii,  14. 

^  The  Assyrian  inscription  says  eight  hundred  talents  of  silver.  It 
is  generally  supposed  that  three  hundred  talents  Hebrew  are  equivalent 
to  eight  hundred  Assyrian.     See  K,A.  7".',  p.  342. 


236  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

elders  of  the  priests  are  sent  to  the  prophet  to  ask 
his  intercession  for  the  poor  remnant  of  Israel. 

Isaiah's  words  were  full  of  encouragement  to  the 
perplexed  king  :  "  Be  not  afraid  of  the  words  that 
thou  hast  heard,  wherewith  the  servants  of  the  king 
of  Assyria  have  blasphemed  Me.  Behold,  I  will  put 
a  spirit  in  him,  and  he  shall  hear  tidings,  and  shall 
return  to  his  own  land."  ^  Rabshakeh  returned  to  his 
master,  whom  he  found  at  Libnah,  Lachish  having 
fallen  in  the  meantime,  and  reported  Hezekiah's 
refusal  to  surrender.  As  Tirhakah  was  advancing 
with  an  Ethiopian  army,  Sennacherib  was  not  in 
a  position  to  invest  Jerusalem.  He  therefore  made 
another  effort  to  secure  a  peaceful  surrender  by 
sending  a  threatening  letter  to  Hezekiah.  The  king 
took  this  epistle  to  the  temple  and  spread  it  out 
as  if  he  would  have  Jahveh  read  the  taunts  of  the 
blasphemous  enemy.  The  answer  of  Jahveh  came 
from  the  mouth  of  the  prophet.  It  was  God's 
own  defiance  of  the  perjured  blasphemer :  "  The 
virgin  daughter  of  Zion  hath  despised  thee  and 
laughed  thee  to  scorn  :  the  daughter  of  Jerusalem 
hath  shaken  her  head  at  thee.  .  .  .  Because  of  thy 
raging  against  Me,  and  because  thine  arrogancy 
is  come  up  into  Mine  ears,  therefore  will  I  put  My 
hook  into  thy  nose,  and  My  bridle  in  thy  lips, 
and  1  will  turn  thee  back  by  the  way  by  which  thou 
camest.  .  .  .  Thus  saith  Jahveh  concerning  the 
king  of  Assyria,  he  shall  not  come  into  this  city, 
nor  shoot  an  arrow  there,  neither  shall  he  come 
before  it  with  shield,  nor  cast  up  a  mound  against 

^  2  Kings  xix.  6  f. 


RELATION    TO   THE   STATE         237 

it.  By  the  way  that  he  came,  by  the  same  shall 
he  return,  and  he  shall  not  come  into  this  city, 
saith  Jahveh.  For  I  will  defend  this  city  to  save 
it,  for  Mine  own  sake,  and  for  My  servant  David's 
sake."  1 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Isaiah's  expecta- 
tions about  the  collapse  of  Sennacherib's  forces 
were  fully  realised.  The  Biblical  accounts  state 
that  the  angel  of  Jahveh  went  forth  in  the  night 
and  slew  one  hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand  men 
in  the  Assyrian  camp ;  that  Sennacherib  returned 
to  Nineveh,  and  was  there  assassinated  by  his  sons 
while  he  was  worshipping  in  the  house  of  Nisroch 
his  god.^ 

It  ought  to  be  plain  that  this  story  is  not  to  be 
interpreted  literally,  as  it  is  in  Byron's  well-known 
poem,  "  The  Destruction  of  Sennacherib,"  and  by 
some  of  the  Biblical  scholars,  such  as  Rawlinson. 
The  Hebrews  ignored  secondary  causes,  ascribing 
every  event  directly  to  God.  The  historian  speaks 
indifferently  of  the  punishment  of  David  as  a  pesti- 
lence and  as  the  direct  work  of  the  angel  of  Jahveh.^ 

Herodotus  preserves  a  tradition*  that  at  Pelusium 
field-mice  ate  the  bowstrings  of  the  Assyrians. 
But  field-mice  are  a  symbol  of  pestilence.  If  a 
disastrous  plague  broke  out  in  the  Assyrian  camp, 
such  as  has  demoralised  many  an  army,  that  would 
satisfy  both  the  Biblical  story  and  Herodotus'  tradi- 
tion.    Jerome  accepted  this  interpretation. 

^  2  Kings  xix.  21,  28,  32-34. 

^  Isa.  xxxvii.  36  fF.  ;  2  Kings  xix.  35  ff. 

^  2  Sam.  xxiv.  15  ff.  *  ii.  141. 


238  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Winckler  ignores  this  disaster  altogether,  assert- 
ing that  Sennacherib  was  constrained  to  raise  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem  and  hasten  back  to  the  East 
because  of  an  invasion  of  Chaldeans  and  Elamites.^ 
The  Egyptians  and  the  Hebrews  alike  claimed 
that  they  were  saved  from  the  Assyrians  by  Divine 
intervention.  The  fact  is  that  Sennacherib  re- 
treated, leaving  both  Jerusalem  and  Egypt  un- 
subdued. Isaiah  was  justified  in  his  confidence, 
and  must  have  appeared  to  the  people  the  real 
deliverer  of  the  people  of  God.  They  could  not 
doubt  that  Jahveh  had  opened  his  eyes  to  see  the 
future  doom  of  the  enemy  of  Judah  and  the  blas- 
phemer of  God. 

Just  at  this  moment  of  his  popularity  we  must 
leave  this  great  prophet,  who  had  laboured  for  forty 
years  for  the  State,  whose  wise  policy  would  have 
made  a  vastly  different  reading  of  history  had  it 
been  faithfully  followed.  Even  as  it  happened  he 
was  triumphant  in  the  end,  and  Judah  had  still  a 
possibility  of  recovery,  a  possibility  which,  as  we 
shall  see,  she  recklessly  threw  away.  Whether  Isaiah 
continued  his  prophetic  activity  or  retired  in  the 
zenith  of  popularity  we  do  not  know.  There  is  no 
prophecy  of  his  which  we  can  surely  date  after  this 
time.  The  tradition  preserved  in  the  Mishna,  that 
he  was  slain  by  Manasseh ;  or  that  in  the  Ascension 
of  Isaiah,  that  he  was  sawn  asunder,  may  be  based 
on  facts,  but  we  have  no  good  historic  testimony  as 
to  his  fate. 

1  K.A.T.\  80. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  PROPHET'S  RELATION  TO  THE 
STATE 

III.    JEREMIAH   TO   ZECHARIAH 

THREE-QUARTERS  of  a  century  elapsed 
between  the  close  of  Isaiah's  career  and  the 
beginning  of  Jeremiah's.  Our  knowledge  of  that 
period  is  very  slight,  and  the  little  we  know  does  not 
make  an  attractive  picture.  So  far  as  our  information 
goes,  prophecy  was  silent.  But  we  may  easily  infer 
the  actual  conditions.  The  prophets  who  saw  visions 
according  to  the  pleasure  of  the  ruling  kings  were 
doubtless  numerous,  but  their  worthless  effusions 
have  found  no  record.  Those  who  saw  according  to 
the  visions  of  God  were  put  to  silence,  even  though 
the  tomb  alone  could  stop  their  mouths.  We  read 
that  "  Manasseh  shed  innocent  blood  very  much,  till 
he  had  filled  Jerusalem  from  one  end  to  the  other." i 

Doubtless  the  faithful  prophets  furnished  their  full 
quota  of  martyrs.2  We  can  easily  comprehend  from 
this  condition  the  fact  that  the  prophets  as  a  class  in 

^  2  Kings  xxi.  i6. 

^  See  Jer.  ii.  30.  It  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  Isaiah  was 
a  victim  of  Manasseh's  bloody  sword  (see  chap.  ix.).  Even  Herod 
dared  not  put  John  to  death  openly,  because  the  people  esteemed  him 
a  prophet  (Matt.  xiv.  5  ;  cf.  xxi.  26,  46).  Manasseh  did  not  heed  the 
natural  protection  which  belonged  to  the  office  of  prophet. 

239 


240  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Jeremiah's  time  were  leagued  with  the  priests  in 
subserviency  to  the  civil  power,  and  the  further  fact 
that  Jeremiah  assumed  the  prophetic  office  with 
great  reluctance,  and  stood  to  his  task  only  from  an 
overwhelming  conviction  that  it  was  God's  will.  The 
seer  who  proposed  to  see  straight  and  tell  what  he 
saw  was  engaging  in  an  extra  hazardous  task. 

Yet  Jeremiah  began  to  prophesy  in  the  peaceful 
days  of  Josiah,  when  the  power  of  the  State  was  on 
the  side  of  righteousness  and  truth.  He  might  well 
rejoice  in  that  day,  for  it  did  not  last  long,  and  the 
rest  of  the  prophet's  life  was  strenuous  and  stormy. 

What  part  our  prophet  played  in  Josiah's  reforma- 
tion it  is  not  easy  to  say.  If  we  could  be  sure  of  the 
accuracy  of  such  passages  as  Jeremiah  xi.  i-8  and 
xvii.  19  ff.,  we  should  know  that  Jeremiah  was  an 
enthusiastic  supporter  of  the  king's  efforts.  Both  of 
these  passages  are  rejected  by  Duhm  and  others,  and 
not  without  some  reason.  There  is  the  most  con- 
vincing evidence  that  Jeremiah  took  little  interest  in 
Josiah's  reforms.  For  when  the  book  of  the  law 
was  found,  and  the  puzzled  king  in  doubt  as  to  his 
course  of  action,  he  sought  counsel  of  the  otherwise  un- 
known prophetess  Huldah,^  rather  than  of  the  already 
well-established  seer  of  Anathoth.  The  choice  of 
Huldah  is  not  explained  by  her  being  the  wife  of  a 
temple  officer  ("the  keeper  of  the  wardrobe"),  nor  by 
Kittel's  suggestion  that  Jeremiah  was  "still  relatively 
young,  and  only  later  attained  greater  authority."  ^ 

^  2  Kings  xxii.    14.     The  office  was  freely  open  to  women  ;   as 
Huldah  had  a  husband,  marriage  was  no  impediment, 
'^  Die  Bikher  der  Konige,  1900,  p.  299. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         241 

Jeremiah  may  have  uttered  his  earh'est  oracles  in 
Anathoth,  as  Duhm  supposes  ;  but  the  world  is  quick 
to  hear  a  fresh  voice,  and  after  five  years  of  prophesy- 
ing this  seer  could  scarcely  be  unknown, 

Josiah's  reform  was  largely  external  and  destructive. 
Such  methods  as  he  adopted  were  necessary  doubt- 
less; but  a  young  prophet,  inspired  with  great  ethical 
ideals,  longing  passionately  for  purity  in  the  State, 
would  naturally  not  be  greatly  interested  in  the 
smashing  of  images.^ 

In  his  earliest  utterances  Jeremiah  reveals  a  clear 
idea  of  a  state  policy  which  was  necessary,  not  merely 
for  the  welfare,  but  for  the  existence,  of  the  nation. 
Israel  was  destined  of  God  to  be  high  among  the 
peoples  of  the  earth,  not  a  servant,  nor  a  home-born 
slave.  Why,  then,  had  he  become  a  prey  over  whom 
the  young  lions  roared  ?  The  answer  was  that  he 
had  forsaken  Jahveh  his  God,  and  was  at  one  moment 
consorting  with  Egypt,  at  another  with  Assyria.^ 
Judah  might  have  profited  by  the  example  of  its 
sister  kingdom,  whose  sins  had  brought  it  to  de- 
struction.2  Notwithstanding  the  ruin  of  Israel  and 
the  low  estate  of  Judah,  the  prophet  in  the  eager 
years  of  his  youth  looked  for  a  new  national  unity — 
Israel  and  Judah  walking  together  in  the  land  which 
God  had  given  to  their  fathers.* 

^  Yet  Jeremiah  had  a  high  opinion  of  the  general  beneficence  of 
Josiah's  reign  ;  see  Jer.  xxii.  15  f. 

"^  Jer.  ii.  14  ff.  *  Jer.  iii.  6  ff. 

*  Jer.  iii.  18.  The  last  two  passages  are  rejected  by  Duhm.  They 
are,  however,  explicable  on  the  generally  received  theory  that  these 
passages,  belonging  originally  to  the  Scythian  invasion,  were  adapted  to 
conditions  of  a  later  time. 


242  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Jeremiah's  chief  concern  was  the  State  as  such. 
In  his  call  he  was  set  over  nations  and  over  kingdoms, 
not  over  individuals.^  The  grave  peril  of  Judah  was 
the  subject  of  one  of  his  inaugural  visions,  and  his 
mission  was  to  seek  to  avert  the  impending  calamity,^ 
The  ground  of  his  contention  with  the  priests  and 
prophets  was  not  directly  their  deadly  formal  religion, 
but  their  blindness  to  the  true  interests  of  the  State.^ 
The  ideas  of  our  prophet  about  the  State  may  be 
easily  gathered  from  his  arraignment  of  the  various 
kings  in  whose  reigns  his  lot  was  cast.  The  oracle 
concerning  Jehoahaz  affords  us  little  light,  but  the 
contrast  pointed  out  between  the  shameless  Jehoiakim 
and  his  righteous  father  shows  clearly  what  a  king 
should  be.  Jehoiakim  had  ruled  by  harsh  measures  : 
he  had  followed  the  bad  example  of  Solomon  in  his 
employment  of  forced  labour ;  he  had  devoted  his 
time  to  the  building  of  palaces ;  he  was  addicted  to 
covetousness,  oppression,  violence,  and  even  murder. 
In  God's  kingdom  no  man  could  rule  by  such  means. 
The  result  of  his  administration  was  that  on  the  day 
of  his  death  he  would  not  be  lamented  as  a  king,  but 
would  "be  buried  with  the  burial  of  an  ass,  drawn 
and  cast  forth  beyond  the  gates  of  Jerusalem."* 
These  words  are  very  bold,  if  we  follow  Duhm  in 
placing  them  at  the  beginning  of  the  king's  reign, 
even  though  we  agree  with  him  that  the  last  part 
was  added  after  the  burning  of  the  roll.  But  the  judg- 
ment was  just,  and  the  true  prophet  of  God  has  only 
one  measure  for  his  words,  not  expediency,  but  truth. 

'  Jer.  i.  lo.  '  Jer.  i,  I3ff, 

*  Jer.  viii.  8-12.  *  Jer.  xxii.  i3fF. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         243 

The  judgment  of  Coniah,^  or  Jehoiachin,  who 
reigned  but  three  months  before  he  was  deposed  by 
the  Babylonian  king  ^  and  Zedekiah  put  in  his  place, 
is  equally  severe.  His  fate  is  portrayed  in  the  darkest 
colours,  and  it  is  quite  inconceivable  that  Jeremiah 
could  have  expected  anything  good  from  his  rule. 
He  represents  this  king  as  utterly  repugnant  to 
Jahveh,  and  such  repugnance  could  only  be  due 
to  the  king's  failure  to  inaugurate  his  reign  in 
righteousness. 

It  was  inevitable  that  Jeremiah  should  come  into 
conflict  with  the  State.  Men  are  not  generally 
tolerant  of  plain  speaking  about  their  vices.  During 
the  main  part  of  his  prophetic  life,  Jeremiah  was 
persecuted  by  State  and  Church  alike.  We  shall 
follow  him  through  some  of  those  perilous  days, 
when,  with  his  life  in  his  hand,  he  was  leading  a 
forlorn  hope. 

Jeremiah  early  found,  like  a  much  greater  Seer 
of  a  later  age,  that  "  a  prophet  was  not  without 
honour  save  in  his  own  country."  The  first  attempt 
upon  his  life  was  made  by  his  fellow-townsmen  of 
Anathoth.  They  were  incensed  at  his  bold  rebukes, 
and  had  no  notion  of  stopping  with  such  half-way 
measures  as  a  mere  command  to  cease  from  pro- 
phesying. Their  plan  was  to  "  destroy  the  tree  with 
the  fruit  thereof."^  In  some  way,  so  notable  as  to 
be  regarded  by  him  as  a  special  providence,  the 
prophet  had  been  apprised  of  the  murderous  plot, 

^  Jer.  xxii,  24-30. 

*  Babylonia  is  now  the  great  empire  of  the  East,  Assyria  having 
fallen.  3  Jer.  xi.  18  ff. 


244  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

and  was  able  to  avoid  the  danger,  probably  by  a 
hasty  flight  to  Jerusalem.^  We  can  easily  under- 
stand, even  if  we  cannot  approve,  the  hope  he  ex- 
presses :  "  I  shall  see  Thy  vengeance  upon  them."^ 

Early  in  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  (609-598  B.C.), 
Jeremiah  felt  the  hand  of  the  religious  leaders  of 
the  nation,  and,  strange  to  say,  the  civil  power  now 
saved  him  from  their  hands.  This  story,  which  we 
find  in  chapter  xxvi.,  will  come  before  us  again  in 
another  chapter,  but  needs  to  be  referred  to  here 
for  the  sake  of  completeness.  The  case  against  the 
prophet  was  his  declaration  that  the  temple  would 
be  destroyed, 3  which  was  to  the  Jews  blasphemy,* 
a  capital  offence,  and  one  of  the  charges  brought 
against  our  Lord.  The  prosecutors  were  the  priests 
and  prophets  and  some  of  the  people  whom  they 
had  stirred  up;  the  judges  were  the  princes  of  Judah; 
Jeremiah  was  his  own  counsel.  His  defence  was 
simply  that  the  words  he  spoke  were  not  his,  but 
God's,  and  that  they  might  do  with  him  as  they  saw 
fit ;  but  that  if  they  took  his  life,  they  would  bring 
innocent  blood  upon  their  own  heads.^ 

Help  came  to  Jeremiah  from  two  unexpected 
quarters.  First,  the  elders  cited  the  case  of  Micah, 
who  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah  had  prophesied  similarly, 
and  whose  dire  threats  stirred  up  the  king  and  people, 
not  to  shed  the  innocent  blood  of  a  servant  of  God, 

^  Jeremiah  probably  prophesied  first  in  Anathoth ;  this  plot  may 
belong  therefore  to  the  very  beginning  of  his  career.  The  date  is, 
however,  quite  uncertain.  Cheyne  places  it  after  the  death  of  Josiah 
{^Jeremiah,  his  Life  and  Times,  p.  107  f.). 

2  Jer.  xi.  20.  ^  See  Jer.  xxvi.  6  f.  ;  and  of.  vii.  4  ff. 

*  Cf.  I  Mace.  vii.  34-38.        '  Jer.  xxvi.  12  ff. 


RELATION   TO   THE  STATE         245 

but  to  amend  their  ways  and  so  avert  the  threatened 
calamity.^  Secondly,  we  are  told  almost  parenthetic- 
ally that  "  the  hand  of  Ahikam,^  the  son  of  Shaphan, 
was  with  Jeremiah,  that  they  should  not  give  him 
into  the  hand  of  the  people  to  put  him  to  death."^ 
How  much  Jeremiah  owed  to  the  powerful  inter- 
vention of  Ahikam  is  shown  by  the  fate  of  Uriah,  a 
fellow-prophet.  He  was  emboldened  by  Jeremiah's 
acquittal  to  speak  in  a  similar  strain.  The  king  and 
princes  even  sent  to  Egypt,  where  he  had  fled  for 
asylum,  brought  him  back  and  put  him  to  death.* 
The  prophet  who  had  no  friends  at  court  lost  his 
life,  but  his  blood  was  not  shed  in  vain,  for  it  is  ever 
true  that  "  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  is  the  seed  of 
the  Church." 

In  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  Jeremiah  was 
saved  from  the  royal  displeasure,  not  by  a  powerful 
friend  at  court,  though  that  help  seems  not  to  have 
been  lacking,  but  by  hiding.  Baruch  wrote  at 
Jeremiah's  dictation  a  resume  of  the  prophecies  pre- 
viously delivered.  A  year  later,  when  the  people 
were  drawn  to  Jerusalem  in  great  numbers  to  keep 
a  fast,  Baruch  read  the  words  of  Jeremiah  to  the 

^  Jer.  xxvi.  17  ff. 

^  Ahikam  was  a  member  of  the  deputation  sent  out  by  Josiah  to 
inquire  of  Huldah  about  the  newly  discovered  law  (2  Kings  xxii.  12) ; 
he  was  the  father  of  Gedaliah,  the  royal  governor  of  Judah  after  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem,  to  whose  care  Jeremiah  was  committed  by  the 
king  of  Babylon  (Jer.  xxxix.  14;  xl.  5  ff. ). 

^  Jer.  xxvi.  24. 

*  Jer.  xxvi.  20-23.  Uriah  could  not  have  been  brought  back  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  Egyptian  Government ;  this  extradition  shows 
that  Jehoiakim  was  disposed  to  lean  on  Egypt  as  a  protection  against 
Babylon  (see  K.A.T.^,  p.  278). 


246  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

assembled  people.  Among  the  auditors  of  Baruch 
was  Micaiah  the  son  of  Gemariah,  and  nephew  of 
Ahikam,  mentioned  above. 

Gemariah  was  evidently  well  disposed  towards 
Jeremiah,  even  as  his  brother  Ahikam  had  been. 
Not  improbably  he  despatched  his  son  Micaiah  to 
the  princes  ;  for  he  saw  that  there  was  trouble  for  the 
author  of  the  words  that  he  had  heard.  Baruch  was 
brought  before  the  princes  that  they  too  might  hear 
the  book  which  was  so  full  of  omen.  When  they  had 
heard  the  words  of  the  book,  they  were  frightened, 
and  resolved  to  report  the  matter  to  the  king. 

Just  what  this  book  contained  we  do  not  know,  ^ 
for  it  was  burned  by  the  king.  That  the  second 
edition  contained  the  same  words  is  very  likely  ;  but 
we  do  not  know  positively  that  the  alarming  message 
has  survived.  But  we  shall  not  go  astray  in  our 
inference  that  this  book  contained  words  of  ominous 
import  to  the  State  :  for  that  only  would  explain  the 
alarm  of  the  princes  and  their  resolve  to  report  the 
matter  to  the  king.  ^  They  did  not  tell  Jehoiakim 
because  they  wanted  to  get  Jeremiah  into  trouble,^ 

^  The  character  of  the  book  is  disclosed  by  the  incidental  quotation 
in  Jer.  xxxvi.  29 :  "  Thus  saith  Jahveh,  Thou  hast  burned  this  roll, 
saying,  Why  hast  thou  written  therein  saying,  The  king  of  Babylon 
shall  certainly  come  and  destroy  this  land  and  shall  cause  to  cease 
from  thence  man  and  beast  ?  "  Duhm  makes  merry  with  this  passage, 
which  he  attributes  to  a  stupid  editor.     But  why  ? 

'  See  also  Duhm  in  loc. 

^  The  English  rendering,  they  "said  unto  Baruch,  We  shall  surely 
tell  the  king  of  all  these  words,"  gives  a  wrong  impression  :  with  the 
Greek  text  we  must  drop  out  "unto  Baruch."  The  last  clause  may 
be  rendered,  "We  shall  have  to  tell  the  king  of  all  these  words." 
The  Greek  text  gives  a  better  reading  for  the  whole  verse :  "  And  it 


RELATION   TO   THE  STATE         247 

but  because  they  wanted  this  king,  like  Hezekiah 
and  Josiah,  to  take  such  steps  as  would  avert  the 
threatening  danger,  and  so  let  the  book  accomplish 
its  purpose. 

That  the  nobles  were  free  from  animosity  towards 
the  author  and  at  the  same  time  doubtful  about 
the  repentant  spirit  of  the  slayer  of  Uriah,  is  clear 
from  their  counsel  that  Baruch  and  Jeremiah  should 
seek  shelter  from  the  king's  anticipated  wrath  by 
hiding. 

The  nobles  apparently  tried  to  break  the  news  to 
the  king  gently.  They  did  not  carry  the  roll  with 
them,  but  left  it  in  the  care  of  the  scribe,  not,  I 
think,  because  they  feared  Jehoiakim  would  tear  it  in 
pieces,  as  Duhm  suggests,  but  for  the  reason  indi- 
cated :  they  probably  hoped  he  would  accept  their 
statement  of  its  contents.  But  they  misjudged  their 
man.  He  promptly  sent  Jehudi  to  fetch  the  roll  and 
read  it  in  his  presence.  Three  or  four  pages  showed 
the  king  what  was  coming ;  and  his  mind  was  made 
up  quickly.  As  the  book  was  unrolled,  piece  after 
piece  was  cut  off  and  thrown  into  the  brazier  to  burn. 
The  king  did  this  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  some  of 
his  ministers  to  stay  his  impious  hand.^ 

The  king  answered  the  threat  of  the  prophet  by 
burning  his  prophecies  and  by  a  vain  effort  to  arrest 

was  when  they  had  heard  all  these  words,  they  took  counsel  one 
with  another,  and  said,  We  must  make  all  these  words  known  to  the 
king." 

^  These  men  may  have  been  moved  by  friendship  for  Jeremiah ; 
but  it  is  more  likely  that  they  were  influenced  by  the  possible  danger 
of  treating  so  despitefuUy  the  sacred  words  of  a  man  of  God.  Such 
oracles  were  generally  received  with  veneration  and  respect. 


248  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

both  prophet  and  scribe.^  He  had  decided  on  a 
policy  of  his  own,  and  he  would  brook  no  interfer- 
ence from  prophet  or  prince.  The  prophet  had  an 
answer  ready  for  the  king :  "  He  shall  have  none  to  sit 
upon  the  throne  of  David  :  and  his  dead  body  shall 
be  cast  out  in  the  day  to  the  heat,  and  in  the  night 
to  the  cold."^  Then  Jeremiah  set  to  work  at  once 
to  replace  the  prophecies  which  had  been  destroyed, 
and  to  the  restored  book  he  added  many  words  of 
similar  import.^  The  issue  was  fairly  drawn.  Never 
again  while  Judah  stood  would  a  true  prophet  be 
free  to  utter  the  message  of  Jahveh  without  taking  his 
life  in  his  hand.  For  this  time  the  prophet  escaped  ; 
but  his  conflict  with  the  governing  power  was  soon  to 
grow  more  intense. 

Jehoiakim's  reign  came  to  an  inglorious  end  in  598. 
He  had  rebelled  against  Babylon,  but  death  spared 
him  the  bitter  consequences  of  his  folly,  and  reserved 
them  for  his  son  and  successor,  Coniah  or  Jehoiachin, 
who  ruled  but  three  months.  There  is  one  prophecy 
which  belongs  apparently  to  this  period,  and  which 
shows  how  hopeless  were  the  affairs  of  Judah.* 
Nehushta,  the  king's  mother,  seems  to  have  had  a 
large  share  in  the  government ;  and  the  prophecy  is 
addressed  to  her  as  well  as  to  her  hapless  son.  The 
prophet  warns  them  that  there  is  no  glory  now  in 

^  Jer.  xxxvi.  23-26.  -  Jer.  xxxvi.  30. 

"  Jer.  xxxvi.   32b. 

■*  Jer.  xiii.  18  f.  Duhm  assigns  this  prophecy  to  the  reign  of  Jehoia- 
kitn,  on  the  ground  that  the  unhappy  short  rule  of  Jehoiachin  gave  no 
occasion  to  Jeremiah  to  give  a  warning  against  pride.  The  reason 
does  not  seem  to  be  very  convincing,  even  though  the  conclusion  may 
be  right. 


RELATION    TO   THE   STATE         249 

the  crown  of  Judah,  because  the  power  of  the  State 
is  broken,  the  land  being  overrun  by  hostile  armies. 
The  false  friends  in  whom  the  people  have  trusted 
will  now  appear  in  their  true  light  as  enemies.  There 
is  nothing  for  this  reign  better  than  failure  and 
disgrace. 

The  king  of  Babylon  had  incited  Judah's  neigh- 
bours to  wage  guerilla  war.^  Soon  after  the  accession 
of  Jehoiachin  a  Babylonian  army  laid  siege  to  Jerusa- 
lem. Either  because  of  the  hopelessness  of  his  situa- 
tion, or  because  he  thought  he  might  save  the  city,  the 
king  surrendered,  and  was  taken  to  Babylon  as 
prisoner,  with  his  mother,  court  officers,  nobles, 
warriors,  craftsmen  ;  in  fact,  "  none  remained  save  the 
poorest  sort  of  the  people  of  the  land."  ^ 

This  deportation  had  important  consequences  for 
Jeremiah.  The  people  who  had  befriended  him 
were  carried  away,  and  he  was  left  to  fight  his  battles 
alone.  We  have  seen  that  twice  during  the  reign 
of  Jehoiakim,  Jeremiah  was  saved  by  the  kindly 
offices  of  the  nobility.  This  class  had  not  abandoned 
all  hope  of  Divine  intervention,  and  they  had  not 
been  ready  to  disregard  wholly  the  admonitions  of  a 
prophet  whose  messages  bore  unmistakable  marks  of 
Divine  inspiration.  With  the  disappearance  of  these 
people,  Jeremiah  lost  his  friends  and  supporters. 
In  the  reign  of  Zedekiah,  who  was  appointed  Baby- 
lonian vassal  by  Nebuchadrezzar,  there  was  no  class 
in  the  State  to  whom  the  prophet  could  look  for 
sympathy  and  support. 

But  Jeremiah  did  not  give  up  the  struggle  to  save 

^  2  Kings  xxiv.  2.  ^2  Kings  xxiv.  14 ;  cf.  Jer,  xxix.  2. 


250  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

his  country  because  he  was  left  to  stand  alone.  Early 
in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah  embassies  appeared  at  Jeru- 
salem from  Edom,  Moab,  Ammon,  Tyre  and  Sidon,  to 
make  a  league,  whose  purpose  was  to  throw  off  the 
yoke  of  Babylon.  Jeremiah  saw  plainly  how  hope- 
less such  a  project  was.  At  the  critical  moment 
these  states  would  not  stand  together,  but  would 
abandon  the  league  to  serve  their  own  interests. 
And  even  if  they  had  acted  in  concert,  these  com- 
bined powers  were  no  match  for  Babylon.  More- 
over, Jeremiah  knew  that  the  punishment  for  further 
rebellion  would  be  severe.  Any  attempt  to  get  rid 
of  the  Babylonian  yoke  would  only  fasten  it  the 
tighter,  and  leave  those  who  wore  it  less  strength 
to  bear.  Hence  he  sends  yokes  to  all  the  ambassa- 
dors, and  declares  to  them  that  peace  and  safety  are 
only  possible  as  long  as  the  vassalage  is  patiently 
endured.  The  prophet  wore  a  yoke  upon  his  own 
neck  as  a  symbol  of  the  submission  which  became 
every  true  friend  of  the  poor  remnant  of  Judah.^  His 
efforts  seem  to  have  been  successful,  for  there  was  no 
revolt  in  the  early  part  of  Zedekiah's  reign,  though  it 
is  likely  that  some  sort  of  a  league  was  made,  which 
bore  its  disastrous  fruit  at  a  later  day. 

Those  who  had  been  carried  to  Babylon  were  rest- 
less, and  were  making  those  still  in  Judah  restless  by 
the  feeding  of  the  false  hopes  of  an  early  return. 
Hananiah  declared  that  within  two  years  the  exile 
would  be  over,2  basing  his  prophecy  not  upon  a 
revelation  from  heaven,  but  upon  secret  knowledge 
of  promised  aid  from    Egypt.     To  counteract   this 

^  Jer.  xxvii.  ^  Jer.  xxviii.  3  f. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         251 

mischief  Jeremiah  wrote  letters  to  the  exiles  in 
Babylon/  telling  them  to  build  houses  and  plant 
vineyards,  and  to  marry  wives,  and  even  to  pray  for 
the  welfare  of  the  city  under  whose  rule  they  were 
constrained  to  live,  for  their  sojourn  there  would  not 
be  short,  as  the  false  prophets  declared,  but  would 
last  for  the  rounded-out  limits  of  a  human  life.  One 
Shemaiah  was  so  incensed  at  this  letter  of  Jere- 
miah's, that  he  wrote  back  urging  his  followers  in 
Jerusalem  to  lay  hands  on  the  prophet  who  was  pro- 
claiming so  depressing  a  message. 

Acting  under  the  instigation  of  Egypt,  Zedekiah 
was  at  last  led  into  rebellion.  Instead  of  the  Egyptian 
army,  for  which  he  hoped,  the  king  beheld  the  re- 
appearance of  the  hosts  of  Babylon  in  Judah.  The 
obstacles  which  formerly  had  made  the  progress 
towards  Jerusalem  slow  had  been  for  the  most  part 
removed.  There  were  few  outlying  cities  to  dispute 
the  course  of  the  army.  Such  as  there  were  had 
long  ago  learned  the  advantage  of  discretion  over 
valour.  The  poor  weak  king  who  had  disregarded 
counsel  when  it  would  have  done  some  good,  eagerly 
seeks  it  now  that  it  is  too  late.  The  hope  that  Jah- 
veh  might  deal  with  Judah  according  to  all  His 
wondrous  works  ^  was  vain  now.  The  world  has 
often  before  and  since  fed  on  that  fatal  delusion  that 
man  may  sin  to  the  very  brink  of  the  pit,  and  then 
demand  of  God  salvation  by  a  miracle.  The  result 
is  too  often  the  scepticism  which  abandons  all  hope 
with  the  cry  "  miracles  do  not  happen." 

The  answer  of  the  prophet  is  very  crushing  to  the 

^  Jer.  xxix.  '^  Jer.  xxi.  2. 


252  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

king's  hopes.  Jahveh  will  even  blunt  the  edge  of  the 
poor  arms  wielded  against  the  foe,  for  Jahveh  is  on 
the  side  of  the  king's  opponents.  The  people  of  the 
city  shall  die  of  a  great  pestilence,  and  Zedekiah  the 
king,  and  those  who  survive  the  disasters  of  the  siege, 
will  be  carried  away  as  prisoners. 

The  people  of  Judah  were  greatly  elated  by  the 
news  of  the  approach  of  an  Egyptian  army.  The 
Babylonians  knew  that  this  rescuing  force  must  be 
crushed,  and  to  do  it  easily  and  effectively,  the  siege 
was  raised  temporarily,  and  the  whole  army  marched 
off  to  meet  the  new  enemy.  Zedekiah  apparently 
had  great  hopes  that  this  was  a  permanent  deliver- 
ance, that  the  Babylonians  would  return  to  the 
siege  no  more.  His  inquiries  of  the  prophet  did 
not  encourage  his  hopes.  Jeremiah  declared  that 
Pharaoh's  army  would  be  driven  back  to  Egypt,  and 
the  Chaldeans  would  return  to  the  investment  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  capture  it  and  destroy  it.  There  were  no 
conditions  now  to  invite  another  such  experience  as 
the  overthrow  of  Sennacherib. 

During  the  early  stages  of  the  siege  an  incident 
happened  which  tells  very  forcibly  the  true  situation 
in  the  city.  Jeremiah's  words  were  being  fulfilled, 
and  he  had  for  a  short  period  a  commanding  in- 
fluence. He  had  insisted  that  the  Babylonians  could 
not  be  turned  back  by  the  sword,  nor  the  city  saved 
by  Egyptian  troops,  but  only  by  righteousness  and 
the  fear  of  the  Lord.  He  had  induced  the  princes 
and  rich  men  to  enter  into  a  solemn  covenant  in  the 
temple  of  the  Lord  to  release  their  Hebrew  slaves, 
which  they  had  held,  in  defiance  of  the  law,  beyond 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         253 

the  limit  of  seven  years.^  As  soon  as  the  siege  was 
raised,  the  people  began  to  regret  their  rashness  in 
sacrificing  property  to  appease  an  offended  God.  By 
an  act  of  the  most  high-handed  tyranny  the  recently 
freed  slaves  were  again  forced  under  the  yoke.  Never 
does  this  prophet  appear  to  finer  advantage  than  in 
his  denunciation  of  the  covenant  breakers,  while  he 
again  assures  the  people  of  the  return  of  the  besiegers 
and  the  utter  destruction  of  the  city. 

Jeremiah's  home  was  in  Anathoth,  a  priestly  city, 
a  short  distance  from  Jerusalem,  from  which,  as  a 
priest,  he  drew  his  living.  During  the  siege  he  had 
been  cut  off  from  his  support,  and  now  that  the  way 
was  open  he  starts  out  of  the  city  to  visit  his  home. 
Those  who  were  smarting  from  his  rebukes,  and 
wished  to  silence  his  gloomy  tongue,  saw  now  their 
opportunity.  In  vain  had  he  been  accused  of 
blasphemy ;  for  the  court  had  not  sustained  the 
charge.  Now,  however,  he  is  arrested  in  the  gate  of 
Benjamin  on  the  ground  of  desertion.  Irijah,  the 
captain  who  made  the  arrest,  took  his  prisoner  be- 
fore the  angry  princes,  where  he  was  ordered  to  be 
chastised  and  put  in  the  dungeon  house,  in  which 
place  he  remained  for  many  days  ;  in  fact,  Jeremiah 
remained  in  prison  nearly  all  the  time  that  was  left 
for  the  house  of  David.  The  princes,  who  had  been 
Jeremiah's  friends,  were  in  Babylon  ;  their  successors 
would  not  stand  his  frank  utterances,  and  were  con- 
stantly engaged  in  an  effort  to  effect  his  destruction. 
The  king,  too,  though  at  times  moved  by  fear  to 
heed  the  prophet's  appeal  for  liberty,  was  strongly 

^  Jer.  xxxiv.  8  ff. 


254  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

influenced  by  his  treasonable  utterances,  and  so  kept 
him  under  restraint.^ 

Much  as  we  admire  the  courage  of  Jeremiah,  we 
must  admit  that  it  is  easy  to  censure  his  persecutors 
unduly.  For  the  prophet's  counsel  must  at  times 
have  been  fairly  maddening  to  the  deluded  patriots 
who  thought  they  might  achieve  the  freedom  of  the 
State.  From  the  beginning  of  the  invasion  Jeremiah 
counselled  submission,  and  he  constantly  declared 
that  the  city  would  be  taken  and  destroyed.  The 
case  of  Judah  was  constantly  pronounced  hopeless  : 
that  judgment  weakened  the  hands  of  the  defenders 
seriously.  But  more  than  that,  he  actually  advised 
individuals  to  desert  to  the  enemy.  "  Unto  this 
people  thou  shalt  say.  Thus  saith  Jahveh :  Behold,  I 
set  before  you  the  way  of  life,  and  the  way  of  death. 
He  that  abideth  in  this  city  shall  die  by  the  sword, 
and  by  the  famine,  and  by  the  pestilence :  but  he 
that  goeth  out,  and  passeth  over  to  the  Chaldeans 
that  besiege  you,  he  shall  live,  and  his  life  shall  be 
unto  him  for  a  prey.  For  I  have  set  My  face  upon 
this  city  for  evil,  and  not  for  good,  saith  Jahveh :  it 
shall  be  given  into  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Babylon, 
and  he  shall  burn  it  with  fire.'"^ 

We  need  not  be  surprised  that  the  princes  demanded 
that  the  king  put  the  prophet  to  death,  on  the  ground 
that  he  depressed  the  spirits  of  the  men  of  war  and 
of  all  the  people.^  Indeed,  it  is  quite  certain  that 
the  princes  were  acting  on  something  more  than  mere 
apprehension.      Unquestionably  many   soldiers   had 

^  See  Jer.  xxxii.  2  f.  ^  Jer.  xxi.  8-10. 

^  Jer,  xxxviii.  4. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         255 

already  deserted  the  hopeless  cause  and  made  good 
their  escape  to  the  hostile  lines,  Jeremiah  must 
have  seemed  to  them  no  better  than  a  Babylonian 
partisan.  In  fact,  Nebuchadrezzar  took  that  view. 
For  when  the  city  fell,  he  gave  particular  orders  that 
the  prophet  Jeremiah  should  be  free  to  go  to  Babylon 
or  remain  in  Judah,^  evidently  feeling  that  the  seer 
had  aided  materially  in  the  conquest  of  the  city. 
Jeremiah  produced  so  great  an  effect  upon  Zedekiah 
that  he  shielded  the  prophet  as  best  he  could  from 
the  princes  who  persistently  clamoured  for  his  blood, 
and  at  one  time  declared  that  he  was  only  kept  from 
taking  the  prophet's  advice  to  surrender  by  his  appre- 
hension that  he  would  be  abused  by  the  Jews  who 
had  already  deserted  to  the  enemy's  standard.^ 

The  issue  showed  that  the  prophet  was  right  and 
the  princes  wrong.  The  temper  of  a  conqueror  is 
such  that  the  more  obstinate  the  resistance,  the  more 
severe  the  punishment  for  rebellion.  The  pricks  are 
always  sharpest  to  him  who  kicks  against  them.  If 
Zedekiah  had  surrendered,  the  city  and  temple  would 
not  have  been  ruthlessly  destroyed.  And  when  the 
king  and  his  counsellors  were  hopelessly  bent  on 
bringing  about  the  destruction  of  the  city,  Jeremiah 
still  tried  to  save  something  from  the  wreck.  He 
was  pained  to  see  so  many  innocent  people  suffering 
by  the  sword,  famine,  and  pestilence.  If  the  city  was 
doomed,  some  of  the  inhabitants  might  be  saved  ; 
for  God  cares  vastly  more  for  people  than  for  cities 
and  temples.  To  save  them  Jeremiah  adopted  the 
course,  so  certain  to  bring  odium  upon  him,  of  advising 

^  Jer.  xxxix.  11  ff. ;  xl.  2  ff.  ^  Jer.  xxxviii.  19. 


256  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

individuals  to  consult  their  personal  interest  and  sur- 
render at  discretion. 

Space  will  not  permit  our  tracing  in  detail  the 
career  of  the  prophet  in  the  dark  days  following  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem.  He  was  at  heart  a  true  patriot, 
and  elected  to  share  the  trying  life  of  the  poor  rem- 
nant left  in  Judah,  a  life  which  proved  to  be  far 
harder  than  that  of  the  exiles.  But  the  prophet 
could  accomplish  very  little ;  a  mad  fatuity  seemed 
to  be  in  the  blood  of  the  Jewish  people.  Strife  did 
not  cease,  nor  wisdom  rule.  Jeremiah  was  dragged 
to  Egypt  finally  by  the  small  handful  of  zealots  who 
fled  from  the  dread  hand  of  Babylon.  If  he  had 
been  left  as  free  by  his  own  people  as  he  was  by  the 
Babylonians,  he  would  still  have  stood  by  the  rapidly 
decreasing  number  of  poor  Jews  who  clung  to  their 
native  soil ;  and  he  might  finally  have  gathered  about 
him  a  small  community  who  would  have  set  God's 
will  above  personal  fear  and  national  prejudice.  For 
some  Jews  still  stuck  to  Jewish  soil,  and  seem  never 
to  have  been  seriously  molested.  It  may  be  said,  by 
the  way,  that  recent  criticism  has  credited  the  Jews 
who  never  left  Judah  with  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem, 
rather  than  the  returning  exiles,  as  has  generally  been 
held. 

One  more  word  and  then  we  must  leave  this,  the 
most  persecuted  of  all  the  prophets.  His  message 
was  generally  a  gloomy  one.  In  fact,  the  skies  were 
so  dark  to  his  vision  that  he  lays  down  the  general 
principle  in  his  controversy  with  Hananiah  that  the 
prophet  who  predicts  evil  is  much  more  likely  to  be 
justified   by   time    than   the   prophet   who    predicts 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         257 

good.^  Again,  he  himself  became  so  weary  of  the 
constant  reiteration  of  evil  tidings  so  unwelcome  to 
the  people  and  so  conducive  to  his  unpopularity, 
that  at  one  time  he  resolved  to  quit  the  gloomy  task, 
and  would,  but  for  the  fire  in  his  bones,  which,  being 
kindled  of  God,  man  could  not  extinguish.^  The 
condition  of  the  State  and  people  was  such  that 
no  true-sighted  seer  could  have  descried  any  other 
outlook  than  the  dark  one  pictured  by  Jeremiah. 
Nevertheless,  there  were  moments  when  his  supreme 
faith  in  God  made  him  hope  for  better  things.  The 
great  Messianic  passage  in  chapters  xxx.-xxxiii.  is 
full  of  assurance  that  the  coming  golden  age  of 
Judah  is  not  a  dream.  In  the  straitest  days  of  the 
siege  he  was  constrained,  though  very  much  against 
his  will,  to  buy  a  piece  of  land  then  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  enemy.  Afterwards  his  eyes  were  opened 
to  see  the  meaning  of  his  own  transaction,  that  land 
would  again  have  value  in  Judah,  and  buying  and 
selling  be  resumed.^ 

Ezekiel,  while  still  a  young  man,  was  carried 
away  among  the  captives  of  598  and  taken  to  the 
river  Chebar,^  a  large  canal  in  Southern  Babylonia, 
not  far  from  Nippur,  the  site  of  the  excavations 
carried  on  by  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.     So 

^  Jer.  xxviii.  7  ff. 

^  Jer.  XX.  7  ff.  This  is  the  sort  of  statement  which  makes  the  reader 
feel  sure  that  the  prophet  was  inspired  of  God. 

^  Jer.  xxxii. 

*  The  location  of  the  Chebar  has  been  definitely  settled  by  Prof. 
Hilprecht.     See  Babylonian  Expedition  of  the    University  of  Penn- 
sylvania, ix.  pp.  27  f. ,  76 ;   and  his  Explorations  in  Bible  Latids, 
p.  411  f.  ;  also  Toy's  Ezekiel  (Poly.  Bib.),  p.  93. 
S 


258  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

far  as  we  know,  Ezekiel's  whole  prophetic  career 
was  spent  in  Babylonia.  In  the  fifth  year  of  his 
captivity  the  visions  of  God  first  came  to  him,  and 
his  greatest  activity  as  a  prophet  lasted  only  during 
the  six  years  of  Jerusalem's  final  throes. 

Ezekiel,  like  Jeremiah,  was  both  priest  and  prophet. 
The  priestly  element  was  not  so  lost  in  the  prophetic 
as  in  the  case  of  Jeremiah.  Yet  being  in  a  strange 
land,  in  which  the  Lord's  songs  could  not  be  sung, 
still  less  the  sacred  rites  observed,  there  was  no 
occasion  for  him  to  exercise  the  office  of  priest. 
Nor  could  he  derive  his  support  from  the  official 
revenues  as  Jeremiah  did  ;  for  these  were  cut  off  in 
the  exile.  During  the  first  four  years  of  his  exile, 
before  he  began  to  prophesy,  he  was  very  likely 
engaged  in  earning  his  living.  Later  on  he  had  a 
house,  and  supported  a  wife,  so  that  he  was  probably 
successful  in  his  efforts. 

Though  living  in  Babylonia  among  the  exiles,  the 
interest  of  Ezekiel  was  centred  chiefly  in  Jerusalem 
among  the  remnant  left  there.  His  book  throws 
very  little  light  upon  the  condition  of  the  Jewish 
captives,  because  his  mind  was  always  wandering 
away  to  the  holy  city.  He  was  kept  well  informed 
of  the  progress  of  events  in  Judah,  and  took  pains  to 
spread  his  knowledge  among  his  fellow-exiles. 

From  the  fact  that  he  was  so  far  away,  and  was 
unknown  as  a  prophet  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusa- 
lem, he  could  exercise  little  influence  upon  the 
course  of  events  there.  But  communication  between 
the  Chebar  and  Jerusalem  seems  to  have  been  free 
and    prompt,  surprisingly  so,  considering   the  time 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         259 

and  distance.  We  cannot  explain  Ezekiel's  ac- 
quaintance with  Judean  affairs  by  any  supernatural 
agency.  The  stream  of  intelligence  must  have 
flowed  both  ways,  so  that  some  of  the  Judeans  must 
have  known  of  the  utterances  of  this  prophet  of  the 
exile.  But  if  Zedekiah,  and  still  more  the  princes, 
disregarded  the  persistent  and  powerful  voice  of 
Jeremiah  poured  into  their  very  ears,  they  were  not 
likely  to  be  much  troubled  by  the  distant  echoes  of 
a  voice  hundreds  of  miles  away.  Nevertheless, 
Ezekiel  learned  the  hard  lesson  that  the  business 
of  the  watchman  is  to  watch  and  to  warn,  without 
regard  to  the  effect  of  his  warning  upon  those  for 
whose  sake  he  stands  guard.  If  Judah  met  her 
doom  in  spite  of  the  prophet's  voice,  he  was  freed 
of  responsibility ;  but  if  the  seer  did  not  declare  the 
disaster  which  he  foresaw,  then  the  blood  of  the 
people  would  be  required  at  his  hand.  So  the  faith- 
ful shepherd,  far  removed  as  he  was  from  his  flock, 
steadily  strove  to  keep  them  in  the  way  of  safety. 

Ezekiel  seems  to  have  tried  to  impress  upon  his 
fellow -exiles,  as  well  as  upon  the  inhabitants  of 
Judah,  the  fact  that  there  was  no  hope  of  a  speedy 
return.  This  delusion  needed  to  be  shattered ;  for  it 
would  result  in  a  hand-to-mouth  existence  among 
the  people,  and  in  the  suffering  which  is  an  inevitable 
consequence  of  such  a  state.  He  does  this  by  assert- 
ing most  positively  that  not  only  will  the  exiles 
not  return,  but,  as  a  consequence  of  the  downfall  of 
Jerusalem,  they  will  be  joined  by  those  who  now 
vainly  seek  the  independence  of  Judah.  We  find 
Ezekiel's  position  fully  stated  in  chapter  vii.,  which 


26o  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Toy  has  entitled  "  The  Doom  of  the  Nation."  But 
Ezekiel  was  too  true  a  prophet  to  content  himself 
with  the  cry  of  Jonah,  "  Within  forty  days  this  city 
shall  be  destroyed."  The  cause  of  the  impending 
doom  is  fully  stated,  so  that  the  people  might  turn 
and  repent  and  so  avert  the  catastrophe.  There  is 
no  blind  chance  working  against  God's  people.  They 
are  preparing  to  reap  the  whirlwind  because  they 
have  sowed  the  wind.  In  the  end  the  disaster  comes 
from  the  hand  of  their  own  Jahveh,  not  from  Bel  or 
Nebo. 

Such  a  discouraging  message  as  this  would 
certainly  make  Ezekiel  unpopular  among  the  exiles, 
as  it  had  made  Jeremiah  unpopular  in  Jerusalem. 
But  the  exiles  were  abler  men  than  the  remnant  in 
Judah.  They  early  saw  tendencies  which  pointed 
to  the  complete  fulfilment  of  the  dire  predictions, 
and  the  prophet  was  constantly  sought  for  advice  as 
to  the  course  of  events.  The  moment  the  elders 
came  to  him  the  prophet  is  lifted  up  in  spirit,^  and 
his  mind  is  turned  to  the  evil  which  he  sees  in 
Jerusalem.  There  the  prophet  beholds  an  image  of 
a  false  god  by  the  north  door  of  the  inner  court  of 
the  temple;^  a  chamber  in  the  temple  where 
Egyptian  worship  was  carried  on  in  secret,  the 
elders,  and  the  son  of  Shaphan  among  them,  joining 
in  the  desecration ;  ^  the  women  weeping  for  Tammuz 

^  "He  put  forth  the  form  of  a  hand,  and  took  me  by  a  lock  of  my 
head;  and  the  Spirit  lifted  me  up  between  earth  and  heaven,  and 
brought  me  in  the  visions  of  God  to  Jerusalem  "  (Ezek.  viii.  3) ;  which, 
being  interpreted,  is  that  the  prophet  enters  the  ecstatic  state  and  sees 
a  vision,  showing  him,  however,  the  true  state  of  things  in  Jerusalem. 

*  Ezek.  viii.  3-5.  ^  Ezek.  viii.  10    li. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         261 

at  the  door  of  the  north  gateway ;  ^  and  at  the  very- 
door  of  the  temple  twenty-five  men  with  their  backs 
to  the  house  of  Jahveh  and  worshipping  the  sun  as  it 
rose  in  the  east.^  There  could  be  but  one  result  of 
such  conditions,  the  final  destruction  of  a  sanctuary 
so  defiled  that  the  holy  God  of  Israel  could  no  longer 
abide  there. 

We  know  clearly  from  Ezekiel  that  there  was  a 
war  party  in  Jerusalem  whom  he  accused  of  devising 
iniquity  and  giving  wicked  counsel.^  In  his  vision 
he  sees  twenty-five  princes,*  who  say  that  it  is  not 
the  time  to  build  houses,  but  to  buckle  on  the  sword, 
assuring  the  people  that  the  naturally  strong  fortifi- 
cations would  protect  them,  even  as  the  caldron  does 
the  meat.5 

Against  this  party  the  prophet  lifts  up  his  voice 
with  strength.  He  paints  in  sombre  colours  the 
picture  which  will  result  from  this  policy  :  "  Ye  have 
multiplied  your  slain  in  this  city,  and  ye  have  filled 
the  streets  thereof  with  the  killed.  I  will  bring  you 
forth  out  of  the  midst  thereof,  and  deliver  you  into 
the  hand  of  strangers,  and  will  execute  judgments  on 
you."^  The  prophecy  was  made  more  portentous  by 
the  fact  that  as  Ezekiel  was  delivering  his  message 
against  this   party,   his  words  were  fulfilled  by  the 

^  Ezek.  viii.  14.  ^  Ezek.  viii.  16.  ^  Ezek.  xi.  2. 

*  Toy  says  it  is  uncertain  whether  these  are  the  sun  worshippers  of 
viii.  16  ;  Davidson  says  they  are  not  the  same  (Cambridge  Bible 
ttt  loc. ) ;  but  the  latter  is  probably  wrong.  To  persuade  the  people  to 
follow  their  mad  advice  the  leaders  must  alienate  them  from  the 
influence  of  the  prophets  of  Jahveh.  They  could  do  this  in  no  way 
more  effectively  than  by  leading  them  on  to  the  worship  of  other 
deities.  '  Ezek.  xi.  3.  *  Ezek.  xi.  6  ff. 


262  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

slaughter  of  one  of  its  leaders,  Pelataiah  the  son  of 
Benaiah.^  Because  Ezekiel  sees  these  things  in  a 
vision,  we  are  not  to  infer  that  there  is  no  reality. 
The  prophet  is  describing  actual  occurrences  in 
Jerusalem,  and  the  vision  is  merely  the  form  he 
chooses  for  his  message.  Very  likely  he  had  already 
heard  of  the  death  of  Pelataiah,  and  takes  this  oppor- 
tunity to  announce  the  fact.  There  are  admitted 
difficulties  in  any  explanation,  but  the  simplest  is  not 
unlikely  to  be  correct.  It  is  unnecessary  to  call  in 
the  aid  of  telepathy,  miracle,  or  illusion.  The  death 
of  one  of  the  war  lords  was  an  impressive  warning 
for  those  who  leaned  towards  useless  resistance,  and 
Ezekiel  makes  a  dramatic  and  effective  use  of  the 
fact. 

The  exiled  prophet  takes  every  opportunity  to 
impress  upon  his  hearers  the  certainty  of  the  ruin  of 
Judah.  He  collected  the  goods  in  his  house,  as  if 
going  into  exile,  and  at  night,  with  a  bandage  on  his 
eyes,  he  carries  the  stuff  away  on  his  back,-  to  the 
astonishment  of  the  confused  exiles.^  The  next  day 
the  prophet  explains  the  significance  of  his  strange 
actions.  "  The  burden  refers  to  the  prince  in 
Jerusalem,*  and  all  the  house  of  Israel.     They  shall 

1  Ezek.  xi.  13. 

^  Toy  says,  "  It  is  doubtful  whether  such  acts  as  these  were  really 
performed"  (Ezek.  in  loc).  It  does  not  seem  to  me  doubtful.  The 
Orientals  indulge  freely  in  symbolic  prophecy,  and  Ezekiel  is  especi- 
ally addicted  to  it.  There  would  be  no  force  in  the  prophecy  without 
the  symbolic  acts.  ^  Ezek.  xii.  3-7. 

*  It  is  noteworthy  that,  except  in  vii.  27,  which  Toy  explains  rightly 
as  a  scribal  addition,  Ezekiel  calls  Zedekiah  prince,  not  king:  The 
exiles  looked  upon  Jehoiachin,  living  with  them  in  captivity,  as  their 
real  sovereign. 


RELATION    TO   THE   STATE         263 

go  into  exile.  And  the  prince  that  is  among  them 
shall  bear  upon  his  shoulder  in  the  dark,  and  shall 
go  forth.  He  shall  cover  his  face,  because  he  shall 
not  see  the  land  with  his  eyes.^  I  will  bring  him  to 
Babylon,  to  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans  ;  yet  shall  he 
not  see  it  though  he  shall  die  there."  ^ 

Ezekiel  announces  the  fearful  doom  of  Zedekiah 
not  as  a  mere  fact,  still  less  with  any  marks  of  pity  ; 
for  he  regards  him  as  the  victim  of  his  own  folly. 
This  is  clearly  shown  in  the  fine  allegory  of  the 
Eagles  and  the  Cedar  of  Lebanon.^  The  prophet 
shows  here  his  acute  ethical  sense.  One  of  the  gravest 
charges  against  Zedekiah  is  that  he  is  a  covenant 
breaker,  and  God  loves  no  false  oath.  Zedekiah 
was  set  on  the  throne  by  the  king  of  Babylon,  to 
whom  he  had  sworn  a  solemn  oath  of  fidelity  "in  the 
name  of  Jahveh.  Yet  he  covenanted  with  Egypt 
and  violated  his  oath :  "  Shall  he  prosper  ?  Shall  he 
escape  that  doeth  such  things?  Shall  he  break  the 
covenant  and  yet  escape  ?  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord 
Jahveh,  surely  in  the  place  where  the  king  dwelleth 
that  made  him  king,  whose  oath  he  despised,  and 
whose  covenant  he  broke,  even  with  him  in  the 
midst  of  Babylon  shall  he  die."  *  The  oath  to 
Nebuchadrezzar,  sworn  in  the  name  of  Jahveh,  was 
Jahveh's  oath,  and  He  will  punish  the  king  as  one 
breaking  faith  not  merely  with  a  foreign  tyrant,  but 
with  God  Himself.^ 


^  Zedekiah  was  brought  before  Nebuchadrezzar  at  Riblah,  and  his 
eyes  put  out,  after  witnessing  the  slaughter  of  his  sons  (2  Kings  xxv.  6  f.). 
2  Ezek.  xii.  8-13  in  part.  ^  Ezek.  xvii. 

*  Ezek.  xvii.  15  f.  °  Ezek.  xvii.  19. 


264  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Enough  passages  have  been  cited  to  show  how 
carefully  Ezekiel  watched  the  downward  course  of 
the  city  of  Jerusalem,  and  how  gladly  he  would  have 
stopped  it.  But  nations,  like  individuals,  are  held 
strictly  responsible  for  their  acts.  Zedekiah  and  his 
deluded  followers  were  not  paying  the  penalty  for 
the  sins  of  their  forefathers,  but  of  themselves.  The 
lower  the  estate  of  the  nation  politically,  the  lower  it 
became  morally,  and  thus  Divine  intervention  was 
made  impossible.  The  people  must  sink  lower  before 
they  could  begin  to  rise.  The  devastation  of  Judah 
must  be  complete  before  the  process  of  restoration 
could  become  possible. 

Ezekiel  looked  for  the  complete  ruin  of  the  State, 
but  he  never  regarded  the  catastrophe  as  final.  God 
tore  down  and  God  would  build  up.  The  moment 
Jerusalem  is  laid  waste,  Ezekiel  loses  all  interest  in 
the  ruins,  and  lets  his  mind  soar  freely  in  the  distant 
future  when  the  rebuilding  will  have  become  an 
accomplished  fact.  Up  to  the  moment  of  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem  the  prophet  had  been  engaged  in  killing 
false  hopes.  From  that  very  day  he  began  to  kindle 
real  ones.  The  people  who  had  been  so  blind  to 
their  peril  could  see  that  much  now.  Before  they 
had  exaggerated  their  power  ;  now  they  exaggerated 
their  helplessness.  So  it  is  always.  The  man  who 
can  see  things  as  they  are  has  always  the  weary 
burden  of  correcting  the  vision  of  those  who  can 
only  see  things  as  they  are  not. 

From  the  day  when  an  escaped  fugitive  brought 
tidings  of  Zion's  waste,  ^  Ezekiel  set  his  gaze  to  the 

^  Ezek.  xxiv.  26. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         265 

future.  In  fact,  he  had  been  warned  by  a  terrible 
blow  that  he  was  not  to  weep  nor  lament  over  the 
ruin,  but  to  set  about  its  repair.  The  prophet's  wife 
died  suddenly,  and  he  was  forbidden  to  indulge  in 
any  of  those  extravagant  marks  of  grief  which  char- 
acterise the  Oriental.^  So  the  desolation  of  Judah  was 
not  to  be  occasion  for  idle  grief,  but  for  zealous  work. 
And  there  was  need  of  brave  souls  at  the  crisis. 
They  who  could  not  believe  in  Zion's  fall  were  com- 
pletely crushed  by  the  unexpected  fact.  The  despon- 
dency was  so  great  that  the  hopeless  exiles  cried, 
"  Our  bones  are  dried  up,  and  our  hope  is  lost :  we 
are  clean  cut  off."-  Their  cry  of  despair  gave  the 
prophet  his  text  for  a  sermon  of  hope.  On  their 
words  he  builds  his  vision  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
dry  bones.  The  dry  bones  with  which  the  valley  of 
his  vision  is  strewn  come  together,  each  one  finding 
its  place  in  the  frame  to  which  it  belongs  ;  sinews 
grow  upon  them,  and  they  are  covered  with  flesh  and 
skin  ;  then  the  wind  blows  and  brings  the  living 
breath  into  the  restored  bodies.  So  will  be  the 
history  of  the  nation.  The  scattered  fragments  will 
be  collected  from  the  remotest  corners  of  the  earth 
and  brought  to  the  land  of  their  fathers.^  And  in 
this  resurrected  people  there  will  be  neither  division 
nor  discord,  but  union  and  strength.  Judah  and 
Joseph  will  be  welded  into  one  people,  just  as  the 
prophet  twines  two  sticks  together  so  as  to  make  one 
stout  staff.  This  people  would  be  morally  restored, 
and  would  acknowledge  the   one   sovereign  of  the 

^  Ezek.  xxiv.  15  ff.  '^  Ezek.  xxxvii.  Ii. 

^  Ezek.  xxxvii.  12  fif. 


266  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

house  of  David.  Jahveh  would  make  a  covenant 
of  peace  with  them,  which  would  be  an  everlasting 
covenant.^ 

We  must  move  forward  about  half  a  century  from 
this  glowing  prophecy  to  its  fulfilment  in  the  days 
of  Haggai  and  Zechariah.  The  actual  condition  of 
Jerusalem  was  very  mean  compared  to  the  Messianic 
pictures  which  had  been  painted  long  in  advance.  So 
it  often  happens  that  the  fulfilment  of  God's  promises 
seems  very  poor  compared  to  the  expectations  raised ; 
but  that  is  generally  due  to  man's  inability  to  in- 
terpret his  own  time  and  his  own  experiences. 

A  number  of  modern  scholars  have  thrown  grave 
doubt  upon  the  return  of  the  exiles  as  told  in  the 
book  of  Ezra,  holding  that  the  Jews  of  the  restora- 
tion were  those  who  had  always  remained  on  Judean 
soil.  I  shall  hope  to  show  in  another  place  that  there 
is  much  truth  in  the  history  in  Ezra,  but  that  does 
not  concern  us  now.  Our  problem  is  to  see  the  part 
played  by  the  prophets  in  the  rebuilding  of  Judah 
and  Jerusalem.  If  we  read  the  little  books  of  Haggai 
and  of  Zechariah,  we  can  see  that  these  prophets, 
while  far  inferior  to  their  great  predecessors,  yet  had 
the  advantage  of  a  more  submissive  people  to  deal 
with,  so  that  the  influence  of  the  prophets  was  para- 
mount In  the  main  the  post-exilic  seers  undertook 
an  easier  task  than  fell  to  the  lot  of  their  predecessors, 
for  it  is  vastly  easier  always  to  rouse  people  to  build 
a  temple  than  to  lay  aside  their  sins.  Haggai  was 
concerned  almost  wholly  with  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple,  feeling  very  rightly  that  the  house  of  the 

^  Ezek.  xxxvii.  i6  ff. 


RELATION    TO   THE   STATE         267 

Lord  was  essential  as  a  central  rallying  point  for 
the  people.  The  reconstructed  temple,  which  was, 
so  far  as  our  records  go,  the  fruit  of  Haggai's 
prophetic  activity,  made  possible  the  larger  work  of 
Nehemiah.  In  the  actual  work  priest  and  governor 
worked  shoulder  to  shoulder,  but  it  was  the  voice 
of  the  prophet  which  roused  them  to  action.^  As 
a  reward  for  Zerubbabel's  obedience,  the  prophet 
declares  that  the  governor  is  a  signet  and  the  chosen 
of  Jahveh.^ 

Zechariah's  visions  are  for  the  most  part  sym- 
bolic of  the  new  era  about  to  dawn  on  Judah.  First 
we  have  the  horsemen  among  the  myrtle  trees  who 
have  come  from  a  tour  of  the  earth,  and  report  that 
"  all  the  earth  sitteth  still,  and  is  at  rest."  ^  The  time 
is  propitious.  There  are  no  disturbing  wars  to  pre- 
vent the  peaceful  development.  The  Jews  need  no 
longer  fear  the  harassing  invasions  of  foreign  armies. 
Then  there  is  greater  hope  because  Jahveh  is  now  on 
the  side  of  His  people :  "  Cry  thou,  saying,  I  am 
jealous  for  Jerusalem  and  for  Zion  with  a  great 
jealousy.  I  am  returned  to  Jerusalem  with  mercies  ; 
My  house  shall  be  built  in  it,  saith  Jahveh  of  hosts, 
and  a  line  shall  be  stretched  forth  over  Jerusalem. 
My  cities  shall  yet  overflow  with  prosperity ;  and 
Jahveh  shall  yet  comfort  Zion,  and  shall  yet  choose 
Jerusalem."  * 

^  Hag.  i.  12  ff,  Ezra  v.  2  says  that  the  prophets  of  God  helped  the 
temple  builders.  Siegfried,  who  supposes  the  prophets  to  be  Haggai 
and  Zechariah,  renders  "  supported"  them.  But  the  reference  may  be 
to  the  sons  of  the  prophets  aiding  in  the  actual  labour. 

^  Hag.  ii.  23  ;  cf.  Ecclus.  xlix.  11. 

^  Zech.  i.  II.  *  Zech.  i.  14  ff. 


268  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

The  vision  of  the  man  with  a  measuring  line  con- 
veys much  the  same  message.  The  city  would  be 
measured  and  found  to  be  too  small  for  the  great 
population  which  would  gather  in  her  borders.  The 
people  would  overflow  the  walls  and  yet  be  safe ;  for 
Jahveh  Himself  would  be  a  wall  of  fire  round  about, 
and  so  afford  ample  protection  to  the  inhabitants.^ 
This  large  population  would  be  due  not  only  to  the 
natural  increase,  though  that  was  a  characteristic  of 
the  new  Jerusalem  ;  ^  but  large  additions  would  also 
be  made  by  the  return  of  the  exiles,  who  were  now 
free  to  depart,  and  whom  the  prophet  exhorts  to  seek 
the  home  of  their  fathers.^  Even  strangers  would 
take  up  their  abode  in  Jerusalem,  an  element  of 
national  life  and  strength  which  the  prophet  cordially 
welcomes.^ 

The  vision  of  the  golden  candlestick  with  seven 
burners  was  meant  as  a  personal  encouragement  to 
Zerubbabel.  Mountains  of  difficulty  stood  in  the  way 
of  the  governor.  The  desolate  ruins,  the  sparse  popu- 
lation, the  poverty  of  the  people,  the  lack  of  general 
interest  and  enthusiasm,  all  combined  to  make  the 
outlook  dark.  Out  of  such  materials  it  must  have 
seemed  almost  impossible  to  construct  an  empire  in 
any  way  worthy  of  the  ancient  glory  of  the  house  of 
David.  The  prophet  does  not  in  the  least  attempt 
to  minimise  the  obstacles  ;  but  rather  to  show  how 
they  are  to  be  overcome.  The  meaning  of  the  vision 
is  that  Zerubbabel  is  to  look  for  success  not  to  might 
nor  to  power,  but  to  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.^    Just 


^  Zech.  ii.  1-5.  -  Psalms  cxxvii,,  cxxviii. 

^  Zech.  ii.  6  ff.  *  Zech.  ii.  11.  '  Zech.  iv, 


.  6ff. 


RELATION   TO   THE   STATE         269 

as  the  lamps  are  kept  perpetually  burning  by  the 
flow  of  golden  oil  from  the  olive  trees,  so  is  the 
governor  to  be  always  sustained  in  his  mission  by 
the  pervading  presence  of  Jahveh's  Spirit.  And  that 
being  the  case,  the  prophet  can  confidently  assert 
that  as  Zerubbabel  has  begun  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple,  so  he  shall  accomplish  its  completion. 

Finally,  there  is  the  splendid  prophecy  of  the 
golden  age  with  which  Zechariah's  message  ends.^ 
The  conditions  of  life  will  be  so  propitious  that  men 
will  live  to  a  ripe  old  age.^  The  city  will  be  so 
secure  that  it  will  be  full  of  boys  and  girls  playing 
freely  in  the  streets.^  The  fruitfulness  of  the  land 
shall  not  again  be  withheld,  nor  the  heaven  keep 
back  the  dew  and  rain  ;  the  present  dearth  shall  be 
followed  by  an  era  of  plenty,  so  that  Judah  will  be 
a  blessing  to  the  whole  earth.*  But  the  fame  of 
Jerusalem  will  not  rest  in  its  walls,  nor  in  its  dense 
population,  nor  in  its  wealth,  but  in  the  power  and 
beneficence  of  its  God.  So  great  will  Jahveh's 
reputation  become,  and  so  eager  are  men  to  find 
God — a  fact  for  all  ages  and  all  peoples  to  grasp 
and  use — that  every  returning  exile  will  find  himself 
beset  by  men  of  all  nationalities,  determined  that  he 
shall  guide  them  to  Zion,  because  of  the  news  that 
God  is  there. 

With  this  beautiful  picture,  which,  alas !  has  never 
yet  been  fully  realised,  but  which  is  ever  ready  for 
a  complete  realisation  wherever  and  whenever  man 

^  Zech.  viii.  ;  ix.-xiv.  belong  to  other  authors. 

^  Zech.  viii.  4 ;  cf.  Psalm  Iv.  23. 

'  Zech.  viii.  5.  *  Zech.  viii.  12  f. 


2^Q  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

shall  learn  that  God  is  the  greatest  power  in  a  State, 
and  that  the  State  may  show  the  presence  of  God 
in  its  institutions  and  in  its  people,  I  must  bring  to  a 
close  the  long  study  of  the  prophet's  relation  to  the 
State. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  two  eras  when 
the  prophet's  political  influence  was  perhaps  greatest 
were  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  and  the  beginning  of 
the  restoration  ;  that  is,  when  Jerusalem  was  at  the 
height  of  its  glory,  and  when  its  fortunes  were  at 
the  lowest  ebb.  But  there  was  never  a  time  when 
the  prophets  were  not  solicitous  in  the  national 
interests,  nor  when  they  did  not  speak  their  mind 
freely  about  political  affairs. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE    PROPHET'S   RELATION   TO  THE 
CHURCH 

I.    THE   EARLY  PERIOD 

WHEN  our  Lord  had  a  rebuke  to  administer, 
He  did  it  directly,  plainly,  and  unmistakably. 
Those  who  came  in  for  the  greatest  share  of  His 
censure  were  not,  however,  the  poor,  the  ignorant, 
and  the  sinful  ;  but  the  rich,  the  learned,  the  self- 
righteous — the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  For  example, 
we  recall  these  words  :  "  Ye  witness  to  yourselves, 
that  ye  are  the  sons  of  them  that  slew  the  prophets  " ; 
"  O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  which  killeth  the  prophets, 
and  stoneth  them  that  are  sent  unto  her."^  These 
are  surely  hard  words,  and  their  severity  is  not  lost 
because  we  feel  the  tender  pathos  in  the  lament  over 
Jerusalem.  How  St.  Luke  loves  to  dwell  upon  the 
persistence  with  which  Jesus  set  His  face  steadily 
towards  Jerusalem  on  the  last  long  journey  from 
Galilee !  and  how  clear  the  motive  becomes  to  us,  as 
we  recall  the  words  spoken  by  the  Master  as  He  at 
length  drew  near  the  city :  "  Howbeit  I  must  go  on 
My  way  to-day  and  to-morrow  and  the  day  follow- 
ing :  for  it  cannot  be  that  a  prophet  perish  out  of 

1  Matt,  xxiii.  31,  37. 
271 


272  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Jerusalem."  ^  The  prophets  who  perished  at  Jerusalem 
had  had  a  hard  time  of  it  in  this  world,  and  in  a 
large  degree  the  hardship  of  their  lot  was  due  to  the 
Church  from  which  they  might  have  expected 
support  and  co-operation.  For  it  was  the  fate  of 
the  prophet  to  die  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  means  that 
the  Church  would  be  the  executioner. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  tells  us  of  the 
triumphant  faith  of  the  prophets  ;  but  it  also  tells 
the  story  of  their  triumphant  sufferings :  "  Others 
had  trial  of  mockings  and  scourgings,  yea,  moreover 
of  bonds  and  imprisonment :  they  were  stoned,  they 
were  sawn  asunder,  they  were  tempted,  they  were 
slain  with  the  sword  :  they  went  about  in  sheepskins, 
in  goatskins,  being  destitute,  afflicted,  evil  entreated 
(of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy),  wandering  in 
deserts  and  mountains  and  caves,  and  the  holes  of 
the  earth."  2  Those  who  found  this  world  an  easy 
and  pleasant  road,  Jesus  differentiated  from  the 
true  man  of  God  by  a  significant  adjective  :  "  Woe 
unto  you,"  He  said  to  His  disciples,  "  when  all  men 
shall  speak  well  of  you  !  for  in  the  same  manner  did 
their  fathers  to  the  false  prophets,"  3 

The  martyrs  did  not  endure  their  sufferings  in 
foreign  lands,  and  at  heathen  hands  ;  indeed,  they 
were  safest  on  strange  soil ;  for  their  blood  was 
shed  in  Jerusalem,  and  by  their  co-religionists.  The 
point  of  danger  to  them  was  not  places  like  the 
modern  China  or  Turkey,  where  our  missionaries 
have  in  our  day  shown  the  old  power  of  faith,  but  at 
home  and  among  their  own  people. 

^  Luke  xiii.  33  ;  Addn.  note  (12).     "^  Heb.  xi.  36  ff.     ^  Luke  vi.  26. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       273 

No  suffering  is  so  keen  as  that  which  comes  from 
those  from  whom  we  have  a  right  to  expect  sym- 
pathy and  help.  How  true  a  note  is  struck  in  the 
Psalmist's  cry  : — 

*'  For  it  is  no  enemy  that  reproaches  me ; 

Or  I  could  have  borne  it : 
Neither  is  it  my  hater  that  insults  me ; 

Or  I  would  have  hid  from  him  : 
But  it  is  thou,  a  man  mine  equal, 
My  companion,  and  my  familiar  friend."  ^ 

If  anything  could  justify  the  fierce  imprecation 
which  follows  (ver.  15),  it  is  just  that  situation.  The 
hardest  cross  which  Jesus  had  to  bear  was  not  the 
one  laid  on  His  shoulders  on  the  way  to  Calvary, 
but  the  one  eloquently  described  in  those  few  words, 
"  Neither  did  His  brethren  believe  on  Him  " ;  and 
the  other  implied  in  His  pathetic  question,  "  Will  ye 
also  go  away  ?  " 

We  have  been  so  long  accustomed  to  look  upon 
the  great  prophets  of  Israel  as  leaders  of  religion 
that  we  are  apt  to  forget  the  bitter  opposition  they 
encountered  in  their  day.  They  seem  to  us  so  truly 
to  have  been  men  to  whom  their  contemporaries 
might  well  look  up,  that  we  quietly  assume  that  the 
hungry  people  gaped  with  open  mouth,  quick  to 
catch  the  crumbs  of  Divine  counsel  which  fell  from 
their  lips.  The  passages  I  have  cited  warn  us  to 
look  for  a  different  story,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact 
the  Old  Testament  tells  us  a  different  story.  And 
it  is  to  that  story  I  now  wish  to  call  attention. 

^  Psalm  Iv.  12  f. 


274  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

The  prophets  were  opposed  at  times  by  the  State, 
at  times  by  the  Church,  and  at  times  by  both.  My 
task  now  is  to  bring  out  the  opposition  between  the 
prophet  and  the  Church ;  for  the  relation  was  gener- 
ally one  of  opposition.  I  use  the  word  "  Church  " 
indeed  in  the  loose  sense,  necessary  in  such  a  study 
as  this,  of  the  organised  or  established  religion  of 
the  time.  For  the  course  of  study  sweeps  over  a 
long  period,  in  some  parts  of  which  the  Church  was 
very  different  from  what  it  was  in  other  parts. 

In  our  study  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets  we  have 
seen  reason  to  believe  that  the  prophetic  guilds  ^  were 
originally  associated  with  sanctuaries,  and  therefore 
in  close  contact  with  the  priests.  These  prophetic 
bodies  seem  to  have  remained  faithful  to  the  priest- 
hood and  to  ceremonial  religion  all  through  Hebrew 
history.  They  were  not  only  a  part  of  the  established 
religious  institution,  but  were  in  sympathy  with  it. 
When  we  come  to  the  great  prophets  who  stand  out 
for  living  truth  against  dead  tradition,  we  shall  see 
that  these  guilds  were  invariably  on  the  side  of  the 
priesthood  and  rigid  institutionalism. 

The  earliest  of  the  conspicuous  and  worthy 
prophetic  figures,  such  as  Samuel,  Nathan,  and 
Elijah,  were  in  name  and  in  fact  priests  as  well 
as  prophets.  Samuel  began  his  career  as  an  appren- 
tice in  the  sanctuary,  and  it  was  there  he  received 
his  first  messages  from  God.  Samuel  was  the  head 
of  the  Jewish  Church  in  his  day.  But  Samuel  re- 
mained loyal  to  the  high  ethical  standard  which 
belongs  to  prophecy.     He  would  admit  no  lowering 

^  See  chap.  iv. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       275 

of  the  ideal  such  as  that  "  the  end  justifies  the 
means."  The  sharpest  admonition  is  administered 
to  king  Saul,  because  he  thought  that  Jahveh  would 
willingly  be  propitiated  for  disobedience  by  the 
offering  of  a  splendid  sacrifice : — 

"  Does  Jahveh  find  pleasure  in  offerings  and  sacrifices 
As  in  hearkening  to  the  voice  of  Jahveh? 
Behold,  to  hearken  is  better  than  sacrifice, 
And  to  give  heed  than  the  fat  of  rams."  ^ 

Elijah  was  engaged  for  the  greater  part  of  his  life 
in  a  struggle  to  save  the  true  Jewish  Church  from 
pollution  by  the  introduction  of  foreign  idolatrous 
elements.  The  prophetic  guilds  for  the  most  part^ 
and  the  priesthood  were  subservient  to  the  royal 
power.  They  adopted  the  easiest  and  most  profitable 
course,  ready  to  ofTer  sacrifice  to  any  god,^  or  utter 
oracles  from  any  deity,  so  long  as  the  king  approved 
and  the  devotees  paid.  Elijah's  warfare  against  the 
king  was  also  a  warfare  against  the  corrupt  Church 
which  he  had  set  up  in  the  Northern  Kingdom.  As 
we  have  gone  over  that  ground  pretty  fully,  however, 
it  is  unnecessary  for  us  to  traverse  it  again. 

^  I  Sam.  XV.  22.  The  theology  of  this  passage  is  regarded  as  too 
advanced  for  the  rude  age  of  Samuel.  H.  P.  Smith  says,  "The  passage 
is  a  summary  of  later  Jewish  theology"  (Sam.  in  loc).  If  we  admit 
the  historic  incident,  then  some  such  rebuke  of  Saul  is  appropriate. 

"^  But  we  must  not  forget  that  there  were  brave  souls  among  them, 
who  died,  and  endured  every  kind  of  hardship,  because  they  would  not 
repudiate  Jahveh  (i  Kings  xviii.  4).  Yet  Elijah  alone  was  left  with 
courage  and  power  to  resist  the  introduction  of  the  Baal-worship 
(I  Kings  xviii.  22;  xix.  10). 

^  Even  in  Judah  at  a  much  later  day  Urijah  the  priest  did  not 
scruple  to  build  a  new  altar  according  to  the  pattern  sent  by  Ahaz  from 
Damascus  (2  Kings  xvi.  11). 


276  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

Other  prophets  of  this  early  period  raised  their 
protesting  voice  against  the  idolatrous  tendencies. 
There  is  one  particularly  interesting  case,  though 
the  prophet's  name  is  unknown  to  us,  and  was  even 
unknown  to  his  biographer.^  Jeroboam  knew  the 
danger  to  political  independence  of  religious  sub- 
jection to  a  foreign  power,^  but  he  took  a  bad  way 
to  accomplish  a  good  result.  He  set  up  bullock 
images  at  Dan  and  Bethel,  and  commanded  the 
people  to  worship  them.^  At  first  the  cult  was 
apparently  not  very  popular ;  for  the  king  could  not 
find  priests  willing  to  serve  at  his  strange  altars,  and 
was  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  consecrating  to  that 
office  any  that  were  willing  to  do  his  will.*  It  is 
possible  that  the  unpopularity  may  have  been  greatly 
increased  by  the  public  denunciation,  which  we  shall 
now  describe. 

The  king  himself  was  standing  by  his  new  altar  at 
Bethel,  in  the  act  of  burning  incense  to  the  bull 
image  of  Jahveh,  when  a  "  man  of  God  from  Judah" 
appeared  on  the  scene,  and  addressed  the  altar  thus  : 
"  O  altar,  altar,  thus  saith  Jahveh,  Behold,  a  son 
shall   be   born   to  the  house  of   David,  Josiah^  by 

1  The  story  is  found  in  I  Kings  xiii. 

-  This  was  the  real  cause  of  the  English  Reformation. 

^  I  Kings  xii,  26  ff. 

*  I  Kings  xiii.  33  f. 

''  The  mention  of  this  name  and  the  prediction  in  which  it  is 
imbedded  (cf.  2  Kings  xxiii.  15  ff.)  show  that  in  its  present  form  this 
narrative  was  written  very  long  after  the  events.  But  there  is  an  older 
folk-story  woven  into  the  passage,  and  back  of  the  written  form  are 
actual  occurrences  such  as  I  have  suggested  in  the  text.  When  the  story 
was  first  written  down,  the  names  of  both  prophets  had  already  been 
forgotten. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       277 

name ;  and  upon  thee  he  shall  sacrifice  the  priests 
of  the  high  places  who  burn  incense  upon  thee."^ 
Jeroboam  stretched  forth  his  hand  to  seize  the  bold 
seer,  but  his  arm  was  paralysed,  and  the  ashes 
poured  from  the  altar,  according  to  the  sign  given 
by  the  man  of  God.  At  the  king's  plea  and  by  the 
prophet's  intercession  his  hand  was  restored,  but  the 
seer  could  not  be  induced  to  accept  the  royal  hos- 
pitality proffered ;  for  he  had  been  straitly  charged 
not  to  pause  to  eat  or  drink,  nor  to  return  the  same 
way  he  came. 

Good  would  it  have  been  for  that  seer  if  he  had 
obeyed  his  instructions.  It  was  no  evil  spirit  which 
led  him  astray,  but  a  fellow-seer  who  was  more  inter- 
ested in  the  kingdom  of  Samaria  than  in  the  King- 
dom of  God.  This  aged  prophet  followed  the  man 
of  God,  and  persuaded  him,  by  a  story  of  an  angel 
message,  that  God  charged  him  now  to  return  to  eat 
bread.  When  the  seer  yielded  to  his  aged  brother, 
he  was  greeted  with  a  reproach  for  his  disobedience 
and  a  prediction  of  his  disastrous  end.  The  predic- 
tion was  soon  fulfilled,  for  after  the  feast  the  seer 
started  for  Judah,  and  was  devoured  on  his  way  by  a 
lion.2 

It  is  easy  to  point  the  moral  of  this  interesting  old 
story,  and  to  divine  the  actual  facts  on  which  it  is 
based.  The  true  prophet  can  never  trust  any  vision 
but  his  own.  Yet  it  was  very  pleasant  for  the  seer 
to  believe  God  had  changed  His  orders,  because 
another  and  older  prophet  had  said  so,  especially 
as  food  and  rest  are  always  agreeable  to  the  weary ; 

^  I  Kings  xiii.  2.  '^  i  Kings  xiii.  24. 


278  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

but  unfortunately  for  him,  God  cares  more  for  right 
than  for  ease. 

The  strait  command  that  the  prophet  should 
neither  tarry  in  Israel  nor  return  as  he  went  was 
designed  to  insure  his  safety.  His  errand  was  peril- 
ous ;  Jeroboam  could  be  contrite  enough  till  his  hand 
was  restored,  but  would  soon  forget  his  punishment 
in  his  determination  to  brook  no  interference  with 
his  religious  programme.  Though  himself  unable  to 
allure  the  seer  to  peril,  one  of  his  prophets  was  more 
successful,  for  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  old 
prophet  deliberately  set  the  fatal  trap.  The  lion 
which  met  the  seer  in  the  way  was  undoubtedly  an 
assassin  who  had  been  appointed  to  lie  in  wait.  It  is 
to  be  said  to  the  credit  of  the  old  prophet  that  his 
subsequent  actions  show  a  sincere  contrition  for  the 
infamous  part  he  had  played.^ 

Even  from  the  priesthood  we  find  an  occasional 
voice  lifted  up  against  the  prevailing  religious  cor- 
ruption. The  Chronicler  tells  the  story  of  the  martyr- 
dom of  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoida,^  the  priest  who 
saved  the  house  of  David.  The  priest's  recorded 
words  are  few,  but  he  said  enough  to  show  his  under- 
standing of  the  times  that  there  was  much  misfortune 
because  there  was  much  sin.     Short  shrift  was  given 

^  The  bones  of  both  these  prophets  were  left  undisturbed  by  Josiah 
when  he  was  fulfilling  the  prophecies  of  this  man  of  God  (2  Kings 
xxiii.  17  f.).  Whether  his  motive  was  veneration  or  superstition  it  is 
not  easy  to  say. 

^  2  Chron.  xxiv.  2  ff.  It  is  a  prevalent  fashion  to  reject  all  un- 
supported stories  of  the  Chronicler.  It  must  be  admitted  that  he  has 
a  habit  of  putting  events  in  the  wrong  place,  and  is  prone  to  exaggerate  ; 
but  some  of  his  stories  may  be  true  for  all  that. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       279 

the  priest ;  he  was  stoned  to  death  by  the  mob,  the 
king,  whom  the  martyr's  father  had  placed  on  the 
throne,  aiding  or  abetting  the  atrocity. 

Naturally  we  shall  find  the  most  copious  and  in- 
teresting material  for  our  study  in  the  canonical 
prophets.  To  them  we  now  turn.  When  Amos 
went  to  Bethel  he  could  make  no  pretence  that  there 
were  no  prophets  in  Samaria  that  he  must  needs  go 
from  the  furthest  bounds  of  Judah,  nor  that  there  was 
no  religion  in  the  Northern  Kingdom.  Prophets  and 
religion  were  there,  and  this  is  Amos's  opinion  of  the 
whole  system  :  "  Come  to  Bethel,  and  transgress ;  to 
Gilgal  and  transgress  again ;  and  bring  in  your 
sacrifices  every  morning,  and  your  tithes  every  three 
days ;  and  make  a  thank-offering  of  leavened  bread, 
and  publish  generous  offerings,^  yea,  make  them 
heard  :  for  thus  you  love  to  do,  O  sons  of  Israel : 
oracle  of  the  Lord  Jahveh."^  The  worthlessness  of 
this  sort  of  religious  rites,  performed  with  punctilious 
fidelity,  is  shown  by  the  prophet's  oft-repeated  cry 
which  follows  immediately :  "  Ye  have  not  returned 
unto  Me,  oracle  of  Jahveh."  Sacrifice  was  one  thing, 
approach  to  God  another.  The  people  had  to  learn 
the  great  lesson  which  even  the  Christian  world 
is  slow  to  grasp,  that  God's  earthly  sanctuary  and 
God  Himself  are  not  necessarily  the  same.  "  Thus 
saith  Jahveh  to  the  house  of  Israel,  Seek  Me  and  live  : 
but  do  not  seek  Bethel,  nor  enter  Gilgal,  nor  pass 
over   to   Beersheba "  —  though    those   were    famous 

*  Perhaps  "  liberalities,"  as  G.  A.  Smith  renders.     The  idea  is  the 
advertising  of  their  generous  contributions  to  religion. 
-  Amos  iv.  4  f. 


28o  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

sanctuaries,  where  the  people  had  been  long  wont 
to  suppose  that  God  was  sure  to  meet  them,  and 
which  they  deemed  safe  under  His  protection ;  so  the 
prophet  goes  on  to  say,  "  for  Gilgal  shall  surely 
become  an  exile,  and  Bethel  shall  come  to  nought."  ^ 

The  people  observed  the  letter  of  the  law,  but  were 
blind  to  its  spirit.  There  were  people  who  cried, 
"  How  long  ere  the  new  moon  will  be  gone,  that  we 
may  sell  corn  ?  and  the  Sabbath,  that  we  may  set 
forth  wheat? "2  Is  it  surprising  that  the  prophet 
should  cry  out  hotly  against  such  religious  practice 
as  this?  Can  we  doubt  that  Amos  knew  the  mind 
of  God  when  he  represented  Jahveh  as  exclaiming : 
"  I  hate,  I  scorn  your  feasts,  and  I  delight  not  in 
your  sacred  assemblies.  If  you  offer  Me  your  offer- 
ings of  flesh  and  meal  I  will  not  favour  them  ; 
neither  will  I  regard  your  fat  peace  offerings.  Take 
away  from  Me  the  noise  of  thy  songs,  and  let  Me 
not  hear  the  melody  of  thy  viols "?^ 

The  question  is  ever  raised  about  such  passages, 
whether  the  antagonism  of  the  prophets  is  against 
the  ceremonial  system  as  such,  or  only  against  the 
abuse  of  it,  which  certainly  was  common  enough. 
It  is  neither  possible  nor  necessary  to  discuss  that 
question  at  length  here.*  It  is  certain  that  there  was 
pretty  strenuous  antagonism  between  the  prophetic 
and  priestly  systems.  It  is  now  generally  conceded 
that  the  great  bulk  of  the  so-called  priestly  legisla- 
tion was  post-exilic  ;  but  it  is  certain  that  priestly 

^  Amos  V.  4  f.  ^  Amos  viii.  5,  ^  Amos  v.  21  fif. 

*  See  the  writer's  0/d  Testament  from  the  Modern  Point  of  View, 
p.  155  ff.     W.  R.  Smith,  O.T.J.C.",  lect.  x. 


RELATION    TO   THE   CHURCH       281 

institutions  existed  from  very  early  times  in  Israel. 
Samuel  was  both  prophet  and  priest  at  the  begin- 
ning, and  Ezekiel  was  both  at  the  end  of  the  great 
historic  period  of  Israel.  In  the  intervening  time 
the  prophets  set  their  face  against  the  system,  either 
because  they  did  not  recognise  it  as  of  Divine  origin, 
or  because  it  had  lost  its  primitive  ethical  motive. 
Amos  seems  to  show  clearly  enough  what  he  thought 
about  the  origin  of  the  system,  for  he  asks,  "  Did  you 
bring  Me  sacrifices  and  offerings  in  the  wilderness 
forty  years,  O  house  of  Israel  ? "  ^  The  period  under 
Moses  was  looked  upon  as  the  golden  age  of 
God's  favour  to  His  chosen  people.-  The  Divine 
grace  was  not  bought  by  a  prescribed  measure  of 
sacrifice  offered  according  to  a  minute  ritual,  for 
Amos  asserts  that  no  sacrifices  were  offered  in  the 
desert.  Surely  he  could  not  believe  that  Moses 
wrote  the  priestly  laws  of  the  Pentateuch^  at  that 
period.  What  God  wants  is  shown  clearly  when  the 
prophet  demands  that  "justice  roll  down  as  waters, 
and  righteousness  as  an  everflowing  stream."^ 

It  is  certain  that  the  priests  of  Israel  did  not  look 
with  favour  upon  the  free  speech  of  this  untutored 
prophet.  Amaziah,  the  priest  of  Bethel,  was  troubled 
with  these  utterances,  and  called  in  the  royal 
authority  to  silence  the  speaker.  He  interrupts  the 
humble  preacher  with  persuasive  sarcasm :  "  O  seer, 

^  Amos  V.  25.  2  Amos  ii.  lo. 

^  See  also  the  passage  of  Jeremiah  quoted  below. 

*  Amos  V.  24.  Ottley  says  very  truly :  "  Some  of  them  [the 
prophets]  appear  to  represent  it  [sacrifice]  as  a  concession  to  spiritual 
immaturity ;  all  of  them  speak  of  it  as  wholly  subordinate  to  moral 
obedience  "  (5a»i/>.  Lect.y  p.  230). 


282  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

come,  flee  thee  away  to  the  land  of  Judah,  and  there 
eat  bread,  and  there  prophesy;  but  at  Bethel  do  not 
prophesy  again,  for  it  is  a  royal  sanctuary,  and  it  is 
a  royal  house."  ^  The  example  for  all  prophets  to 
follow  was  set  once  for  all  by  this  first  prophet^ 
whose  words  have  been  preserved.  He  begins  with 
an  apologia :  "  I  am  not  a  prophet,  nor  am  I  one  of 
the  sons  of  the  prophets :  but  I  am  a  herdman,  and 
a  dresser  of  sycamore  trees."  He  thus  reminds 
Amaziah  that  he  did  not  belong  to  the  order  of 
established  prophets,  possibly  under  a  vow  of  obedi- 
ence to  king  or  priest,  but  received  his  commission 
in  such  a  way  that  obedience  to  the  priestly  mandate, 
even  though  supported  by  royal  authority,  was  im- 
possible :  "  Jahveh  took  me  from  the  flock,  and 
Jahveh  said  unto  me.  Go,  prophesy  unto  My  people 
Israel."^  In  other  words,  Amos  was  not  pleading 
his  disadvantages  in  not  having  a  prophet's  educa- 
tion and  position,  but  rather  explaining  his  superior 
position  to  the  members  of  an  institution  who  were 
bound  hand  and  foot.  No  prophet  can  ever  wear 
fetters.  Amos  was  prophesying,  not  by  virtue  of  a 
commission  sealed  by  human  authority,  but  by  the 
direct  call  of  God.  He  proclaims  the  unwelcome 
truth,  not  because  he  likes  contention  and  unpopu- 

^  Amos  vii.  12  f. 

^  Yet  we  must  not  forget  the  words  of  Micaiah  the  son  of  Imlah, 
when  his  friendly  advisers  asked  him  to  confirm  what  the  other 
prophets  had  foretold  :  "  What  Jahveh  saith  unto  me  that  will  I  speak  " 
(i  Kings  xxii.  14) ;  nor  the  words  of  Balaam,  anxious  as  he  was  to 
win  the  rich  prize  offered  by  the  king  of  Moab  :  "  If  Balak  would 
give  me  his  house  full  of  silver  and  gold,  I  cannot  go  beyond  the  word 
of  Jahveh  my  God,  to  do  less  or  more"  (Num.  xxii,  18). 

^  Amos  vii.  15.     See  further  p.  57, 


RELATION    TO   THE   CHURCH       283 

larity,  but  because  he  must  obey  God  rather  than  men. 
God  had  started  him,  God  alone  could  stop  him. 

Now  and  then,  all  through  the  ages,  Jewish  and 
Christian,  there  has  arisen  a  great  soul,  who  was 
not  mistaken  in  his  belief,  that  however  he  was  con- 
nected with  man-controlled  institutions,  the  real 
source  of  his  authority  to  speak  was  God  Himself 
Such  men  have  generally  met  fierce  opposition  in 
their  day,  but  they  have  never  wavered  in  their  work. 
They  are  the  men  who  have  lifted  religion  from  the 
low  plane  to  which  it  sometimes  falls,  and  to  whom 
the  Church  owes  a  debt  which  it  usually  pays  in 
building  their  sepulchres.  We  may  also  confidently 
believe  that  there  are  thousands  of  humbler  men, 
whose  names  are  never  known  to  but  few,  who  are 
rightly  conscious  of  the  same  high  calling,  and  are 
equally  faithful  to  their  exalted  trust. 

Before  we  leave  Amos,  let  us  pause  for  a  moment 
to  ask  the  result  of  the  attempt  to  silence  him.  He 
went  right  on  with  his  preaching,  forecasting  a  dire- 
ful future  for  the  misguided  priest  who  was  unable, 
because  unwilling,  to  discern  the  voice  of  the  Lord  ; 
he  went  right  on  with  his  denunciation  of  Israel's 
sins ;  he  declared  that  so  far  from  the  temple's  being 
a  talisman  of  safety,  God  would  stand  by  the  sacred 
altar,  and  begin  His  work  of  destruction  there ;  and 
at  length  finishing  his  message  with  some  bright 
pictures  of  a  new  Israel  in  a  new  age.  Then,  his 
work  done,  we  may  surmise  that  he  gladly  returned 
to  the  little  village  of  Tekoa,  on  the  confines  of  the 
wilderness  of  Judah,  and  resumed  the  humble  tasks 
of  following  the  flock  and  dressing  sycamore  trees. 


284  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

Hosea  stands  in  marked  contrast  to  Amos,  as 
already  pointed  out,  in  that  he  was  called,  not  to 
exercise  a  ministry  temporarily,  and  then  to  lay  it 
down  for  all  time,  but  to  give  his  life  to  it. 

Hosea  seems  never  to  have  come  into  conflict  with 
the  powers  that  be,  political  or  ecclesiastical,  in  such 
a  way  that  they  attempted  to  restrict  his  liberty  of 
prophesying,  but  that  was  not  because  he  did  not 
give  them  abundant  excuse.  No  man  was  ever  more 
strenuous  in  denouncing  evil  even  when  the  cul- 
prits were  high  in  ecclesiastical  power.  Priests  and 
prophets  alike  come  in  for  a  full  share  of  stinging 
rebukes.  Let  me  venture  to  remind  the  reader  that 
the  prophets  of  whom  he  speaks  were  not  upstarts, 
deluded  by  their  aspirations  for  position,  but  were 
supposed  to  have  a  juster  claim  to  popular  recogni- 
tion than  he  had. 

He  says  to  the  priest,  "  Thou  shalt  stumble  by  day, 
and  the  prophet  also  shall  stumble  with  thee  by 
night."^  Again  he  exclaims,  "The  prophet  is  a  fool, 
and  the  man  of  the  spirit  is  mad,  because  of  the 
multitude  of  their  iniquity  and  the  greatness  of  the 
enmity.  As  for  the  prophet,  a  fowler's  snare  is  in  all 
his  ways,  and  enmity  in  the  house  of  his  God."'^ 
These  deceivers  and  time-servers  stand  in  their  true 
bad  light ;  especially  when  contrasted  with  those  who 
had  really  believed  God's  word.  God  had  "hewed 
them  [His  people]  by  the  prophets,  and  slain  them 
by  the  words  of  His  mouth."^  Again  God  says,  "  I 
have  spoken  unto  the  prophets,  and  I  have  multiplied 

^  Hosea  iv.  5.  ^  Hosea  ix.  7  f. 

^  Hosea  vi.  5. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       285 

visions ;  and  by  the  hand  of  the  prophets  have  I 
used  similitudes."  1 

The  priests  were  even  worse  than  the  prophets. 
"And  it  shall  be,  like  people,  like  priest."^  No 
wonder  that  the  people  were  bad  under  such  a  priest- 
hood ;  and  the  doom  hanging  over  the  people  would 
involve  the  priests  as  well.  Those  who  were  called  a 
"  snare  at  Mizpah,  and  a  net  spread  upon  Tabor," 
were  not  only  the  masses,  but  the  royal  house  and 
the  priests.3  For  the  priests  do  not  stop  short  even 
of  the  most  open  crime :  "  As  bandits  lying  in  wait, 
so  the  company  of  priests  murder  on  the  road  to 
Shechem  ;  yea,  they  commit  outrages."* 

The  religious  rites  performed  by  such  priests  and 
such  people  will  avail  nothing  :  "  They  shall  not  pour 
out  wine  unto  Jahveh,  neither  shall  they  arrange 
sacrifices  for  Him  ;  their  bread  shall  be  like  the  bread 
of  mourners."^  "  Israel  is  a  spreading  vine  :  according 
to  the  abundance  of  his  fruit,  he  has  increased  his 
altars."  But  what  good  is  prosperity?  for  "their 
heart  is  divided;  surely  they  will  be  found  guilty."* 
But  the  sum  of  the  whole  matter  is  put  in  one  of 
those  fine  utterances  which  God  now  and  then 
breathes  into  the  soul  of  man  :  "  I  desire  mercy  and 
not  sacrifice,  and  knowledge  of  God  more  than  burnt 
offerings."^ 

Amos  and  Hosea  both  prophesied  in  the  Northern 


^  Hosea  xii.  lo.  ^  Hosea  iv.  9. 

^  Hosea  v.  i.  *  Hosea  vi.  9. 

*  Hosea  ix.  4  ;  making  two  slight  but  necessary  emendations,  after 
G.  A.  Smith,  Wellh.,  Kuenen,  Marti. 

^  Hosea  x.  i  f.  ^  Hosea  vi.  6. 


286  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

Kingdom,  where  the  religion  of  Jahveh  was  at  a  low 
ebb.  We  turn  now  to  Judah  and  to  the  prophets 
whose  life  and  work  lay  in  that  kingdom.  We  will 
first  glance  for  a  moment  at  Micah,  the  rural  contem- 
porary of  Isaiah.  He  was  familiar  with  those  who 
would  suppress  unpleasant  truths,  but  he  was  un- 
moved by  their  opposition  :  "  Prate  not,  thus  they 
prate :  let  none  prate  of  these  things  ;  revilings  are 
unceasing."^  The  evil  prophets  took  the  lead  in 
trying  to  silence  the  honest  and  fearless  voice.  Sin- 
ful people  soon  weary  of  having  their  sins  laid  bare. 
We  occasionally  yet  hear  a  preference  expressed  for 
preaching  about  the  goodness  of  God,  rather  than  of 
the  sins  of  men. 

Micah  had  something  to  say  about  a  class  of 
prophets  who  exist  in  every  age,  who  make  their 
message  conform  to  the  standards  of  men,  rather 
than  to  the  standards  of  God  :  "  Thus  saith  Jahveh 
about  the  prophets  who  lead  My  people  astray ;  who 
snap  their  teeth  and  cry,  Peace ;  and  whoso  does  not 
give  for  their  mouths,  against  him  do  they  proclaim 
war :  therefore  they  shall  have  a  visionless  night,  and 
darkness  too  intense  for  divination  ;  and  the  sun 
shall  set  upon  the  prophets,  and  the  day  shall  be 
black  over  them.  And  the  seer  shall  be  ashamed, 
and  the  diviners  confounded  :  they  shall  all  cover 
their  lips,  for  there  is  no  answer  of  God."^  Preachers 
who  care  more  for  what  goes  into  their  mouths  than 
for  what  comes  out  are  an  abomination  unto  the 
Lord  at  all  times. 

There  is  another  passage  in  this  little  book  which 
^  Micah  ii.  6,  after  G.  A.  Smith.  ^  Micah  iii.  5-7. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       287 

I  will  quote  here,  though  there  is  doubt  whether  it 
belongs  to  Micah  or  not.^ 

But  to  whatever  period  and  to  whatever  man  it  is 
to  be  assigned,  the  ever-convincing  internal  evidence 
assures  us  that  it  was  breathed  into  a  human  soul  by 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  It  points  out  unmistakably 
the  sharp  contrast  between  the  popular  religion  with 
an  appointed  sacrifice  to  atone  for  every  sin  and  the 
high  ethical  religion  most  pleasing  to  God.  The  pas- 
sage represents  a  soul  in  a  great  struggle.  A  serious 
problem  has  to  be  faced.  A  man  has  sinned.  His 
sin  does  not  sit  lightly  upon  him,  but  is  seen  in  its 
true  light.  The  soul's  peace  is  disturbed  ;  relations 
with  God  are  broken — what  is  to  be  done .-'  "  Where- 
with shall  I  come  before  Jahveh  ?  Shall  I  bow 
myself  before  the  high  God  ?  Shall  I  come  before 
Him  with  burnt  offerings,  and  with  calves  of  a  year 
old  ?  Will  Jahveh  be  propitiated  with  thousands  of 
rams,  or  with  ten  thousand  rivers  of  oil?  Shall  I 
give  my  first-born  for  a  guilt  offering  :  the  fruit  of 
my  body  for  the  sin  of  my  soul  ?  "  The  questions 
are  asked  with  all  the  fervour  of  a  soul  in  deep  dis- 
tress, and  yet  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  the  various 
popular  methods  of  relief  He  knows  the  things  that 
will  not  help ;  but  the  prophet  does  not  let  him  rest 
in  negations.  The  positive  statement  is  clear,  brief, 
and  ethically  beautiful  :  "  He  hath  showed  thee,  O 
man,  what  is  good  ;  and  what  doth  Jahveh  require  of 

^  Micah  vi.  i-8.  W.  R.  Smith  long  ago  accepted  Ewald's  view 
that  Micah  vi. ,  vii.  i-6,  belongs  to  the  age  of  Manasseh  ;  he  accepted 
Wellhausen's  conclusion  that  vii.  7-20  must  be  dated  in  the  Babylonian 
exile  {Prophets,  p.  439).  G.  A.  Smith  comes  back  to  the  conservative 
position  and  ascribes  the  passages  to  Micah. 


288  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk 
humbly  with  thy  God  ?  "  ^ 

Not  all  prophecies  are  to  be  found  in  the  prophets' 
books.  Some  of  the  finest  have  come  down  in 
poetic  form.  There  are  several  anti-sacrificial  Psalms, 
whose  authors  were  really  seers.  They  show  that  the 
spirit  of  the  prophets  manifested  itself  in  many  ways.^ 

**  I  will  not  reprove  thee  for  thy  sacrifices ; 
And  thy  burnt  offerings  are  continually  before  Me. 
I  will  take  no  bullock  out  of  thy  house, 
Nor  he-goat  out  of  thy  folds. 
Will  I  eat  the  flesh  of  bulls. 
Or  drink  the  blood  of  goats  ?  "  ^ 

"For  Thou  delightest  not  in  sacrifice;  else  would  I  give  it; 
Thou  hast  no  pleasure  in  burnt  offering. 
The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit ; 
A  broken  and  contrite  heart,  O  God,  Thou  wilt  not 
despise."  ^ 

Before  leaving  Micah,  I  must  point  out  the  best 
evidence  that  Micah  produced  a  great  effect  on  his  age, 
greater  than  we  can  estimate  from  his  book  alone.  The 
testimony  of  Jeremiah  xxvi.  17-19  is  of  the  first  im- 
portance, and  it  shows  us  that  the  reforms  of  Hezekiah 
were  traced  to  the  influence  of  Micah  rather  than  to 
Isaiah.^     Micah's   declaration    that   Zion    would    be 

^  Micah  vi.  6-8. 

*  Peters  thinks  that  some  passages  in  the  prophets,  e.g.  Jer.  xx.,  show 
the  influence  of  the  Psalms  ( The  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Scholar- 
ship, p.  176  f. ).  Is  it  not  rather  the  case  that  the  Psalms  show  the 
influence  of  the  Prophets  ? 

3  Psalm  1.  8  f.,  13.  *  Psalm  li.  16  f. 

*  For  Isaiah's  part  in  the  reform  see  chap.  x. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       289 

plowed  as  a  field,  Jerusalem  become  heaps,  and  the 
mountain  of  the  house  as  the  high  places  of  a  forest,^ 
had  produced  a  great  impression.  The  king  and 
people  took  alarm,  realising  that  the  very  centre  of 
their  religion  could  only  be  saved  by  amended  lives. 
Therefore  Hezekiah  repented  and  instituted  reforms. 
Yet  it  is  easy  to  overdo  the  matter  of  exalting  Micah's 
influence  over  Isaiah's.  All  that  we  learn  elsewhere 
would  indicate  that  Micah's  preaching  was  little  known 
in  Jerusalem,  while  Isaiah's  influence  over  Hezekiah 
was  very  great.  The  citation  of  the  elders  is  easily 
explained  by  the  similarity  of  subject.  Jeremiah 
was  in  the  toils  for  predicting  the  fall  of  the  temple 
and  city ;  but  Micah  had  said  the  same  thing  and 
was  not  charged  with  crime. 

^  Micah  iii.   12. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE   PROPHET'S   RELATION  TO   THE 
CHURCH 

II.     ISAIAH   TO  JOEL 

ONCE  more  we  turn  to  the  greatest  of  all  the 
prophets.  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  was  great 
as  a  teacher  of  religious  truth  ;  as  we  have  seen,  he 
was  also  great  as  a  statesman.  Perhaps  his  statesman- 
ship was  the  most  marked  trait.  He  busied  himself 
perpetually  with  the  affairs  of  the  nation,  and  fre- 
quently was  in  conflict  with  the  king  and  nobles.  He 
had  much  to  say  about  the  sins  of  the  nation  and 
the  holiness  of  the  Lord  ;  but  he  had  comparatively 
little  to  say  about  priests  and  prophets.  Isaiah  seems 
to  have  been  brought  up  in  the  ordinances  of  the 
Jewish  religion  :  he  was  in  the  temple  when  he  saw 
the  vision  so  graphically  described  by  him,  and  which 
finally  overcame  his  reluctance  to  take  up  the  pro- 
phetic office.  He  spent  a  long  life  of  at  least  forty 
years  in  that  ministry. 

Isaiah  certainly  was  not  unfriendly  to  the  priests  as 
such  ;  for  when  he  set  up  a  tablet  whose  full  meaning 
should  be  clearly  apparent  at  a  future  day,  he  chose 
among  the  witnesses  of  his  act  "Uriah  the  priest."^ 

^  Isa.  viii.  2. 
2Q0 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       291 

The  prophet  also  was  looked  upon  as  exercising  a 
proper  mission  in  the  world.  When  he  declared  that 
Jahveh  would  take  away  from  Judah  and  Jerusalem 
those  upon  whom  it  rested,  he  enumerates  the  prophets 
along  with  the  elder,  the  judge,  the  man  of  war,  as 
being  together  those  whose  offices  would  be  sorely- 
missed  in  the  State. 

But  both  priest  and  prophet  are  severely  cen- 
sured when  they  are  found  indulging  in  drunken 
revels,  as  if  strong  drink  were  the  kind  of  spirit 
by  which  the  Lord  stirred  up  His  servants :  "  Priest 
and  prophet  reel  through  strong  drink ;  they  are 
swallowed  up  of  wine,  they  are  gone  astray  through 
strong  drink  ;  they  reel  in  vision,  they  stumble  in 
judgment."  ^ 

As  I  have  before  suggested,  Isaiah  was  brought  up 
under  the  pre-exilic  sacrificial  system,  and  may  have 
continued  in  that  all  his  life.  But  when  he  saw  that 
the  people  were  wont  to  depend  upon  sacrifices  rather 
than  a  clean  moral  life,  then  his  denunciation  breaks 
out  in  strong  words  :  "  What  is  the  multitude  of  your 
sacrifices  to  Me  ?  saith  Jahveh  :  I  am  sated  with  burnt 
offerings  of  rams,  and  the  fat  of  fed  beasts ;  and  in 
the  blood  of  bullocks  and  lambs  and  he-goats  I  take 
no  pleasure.  When  you  come  to  see  My  face,  who 
required  now  at  your  hand  to  trample  My  courts? 
[i.e.  with  animals  for  sacrifice.]  Bring  no  more  vain 
oblations  ;  incense  is  an  abomination  unto  Me ;  new 
moon  and  sabbath,  the  convoking  of  assemblies, — 
I  cannot  endure ;  it  is  iniquity,  even  the  solemn 
meeting.     Your    new   moons   and    your    appointed 

'  Isa.  xxviii.  7. 


292  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

feasts  are  loathsome,  they  are  a  burden  unto  Me, 
which  I  am  weary  of  bearing."  ^ 

The  reason  of  God's  displeasure  at  this  formal, 
soulless  ritual  is  stated  in  a  word  :  "  Your  hands  are 
full  of  blood."  2  Those  deluded  people  fancied  they 
could  wash  out  the  deep  stains  in  the  blood  of 
bullocks,  even  as  many  evangelical  Christians  have 
thought  they  could  wash  theirs  out  in  the  blood  of 
the  Lamb.  I  think  that  Isaiah  could  never  have  sung 
that  once-common  hymn  : — 

"  There  is  a  fountain  filled  with  blood 
Drawn  from  Emmanuel's  veins  : 
And  sinners  plunged  beneath  that  flood 
Lose  all  their  guilty  stains." 

What  God  demands  is  rightly  seen  and  clearly 
stated  by  the  prophet :  "Wash  you,  make  you  clean  ; 
put  away  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  Mine 
eyes ;  cease  to  do  evil,  learn  to  do  well ;  seek  justice, 
relieve  the  oppressed,  deal  justly  with  the  fatherless, 
plead  for  the  widow."  ^  No  sacrifice,  no  blood  bath, 
can  ever  take  the  place  of  earnest  moral  endeavour. 
The  prophet  must  take  issue  with  his  Church  when  he 
saw  it  sinking  to  an  unworthy  conception  of  God, 
as  if  His  favours  might  be  bought  with  blood. 

One  of  the  greatest  dangers  to  the  Church  of  God, 
whether  Jewish  or  Christian,  is  unreality.  We  can- 
not escape  this  grave  peril  by  adopting  a  ritual,  nor 
by  dispensing  with  ritual,  but  only  by  the  most  per- 
sistent and  strenuous  moral  efforts.  This  danger  was 
present  in   Isaiah's  day;  it  was  one  of  the  things 

^  Isa.  i.  11-14.  '^  Isa.  i.  15.  ^  Isa.  i.  16  f. 


RELATION   TO   THE  CHURCH       293 

which  made  wide  the  gulf  between  God  and  His 
chosen  people :  "  This  people  draw  near  Me,  and 
with  their  mouth  and  with  their  lips  honour  Me ; 
but  their  heart  is  far  from  Me,  and  their  fear  of  Me 
is  a  commandment  of  men  learned  by  rote."^ 

But  there  was  another  phase  of  the  popular  feeling 
which  was  worse  than  unreality,  worse  than  merely 
formal  sacrifices,  and  that  was  the  attempt  to  force 
the  prophets  either  to  keep  silence,  or  to  conform 
their  utterances  to  the  wishes  rather  than  the  needs 
of  the  people.  God  pity  the  prophet  of  any  age  who 
must  ask,  not.  What  would  the  Lord  have  me  say 
to  my  people?  but.  What  will  my  people  receive 
without  offence?  God  pity  the  people  who  would 
not  gladly  hear  the  Lord's  truth,  even  though  it 
made  them  shake  like  reeds  in  the  wind. 

There  were  people  demanding  easy  teaching  in 
Isaiah's  time,  and  there  were  prophets  who  heeded 
them  ;  but  the  son  of  Amoz  was  not  among  them. 
"  It  is  a  rebellious  people,"  he  cried,  "  lying  children  ; 
children  unwilling  to  hear  the  teaching  of  Jahveh  : 
who  say  to  the  seers,  See  not ;  and  to  the  prophets, 
Prophesy  not  unto  us  true  things,  speak  unto  us 
smooth  things,  prophesy  deceits."^ 

Messianic  prophecy  does  not  occupy  the  place  it 
once  did  in  Christian  thought,  because  we  have  not 
yet  adjusted  ourselves  fully  to  the  new  light.  But 
a  Messianic  life  appeals  to  us  more  forcibly  to-day 
than  ever  before.  Jeremiah,  the  humble  priest  of 
Anathoth,  lived  a  Messianic  life,  filled  on  the  one  side 
with  consecration  to  his  Divine  mission,  and  on  the 

^  Isa.  xxix.  13.  '  Isa.  xxx.  9  f. 


294  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

other  with  suffering  due  to  the  persecutions  of  those 
who  did  not  respect  the  feelings  of  a  peculiarly- 
sensitive  soul.  In  a  bitter  moment  Jeremiah  cried 
out  that  he  had  been  deceived  ;^  but  he  had  no  just 
reason  to  feel  so,  for  he  had  been  warned  at  the  start 
of  his  prophetic  career  that  he  would  encounter 
serious  though  not  fatal  opposition :  "  They  shall  fight 
against  thee,  but  they  shall  not  prevail  against  thee.""^ 

The  evil  due  to  a  great  body  of  prophets  more 
concerned  to  please  the  people  than  to  know  the  will 
of  God,  was  either  greater  in  Jeremiah's  day  than  in 
any  other  time,  or  else  he  felt  the  degradation  of  the 
prophetic  office  more  keenly.  For  he  has  more  to 
say  against  these  lying  prophets  than  anyone  else. 
Sometimes  he  includes  the  priests  in  his  condemna- 
tion :  "  A  wonderful  and  horrible  thing  has  come  to 
pass  in  the  land  ;  the  prophets  prophesy  falsely,  and 
the  priests  bear  rule  at  their  hand  ;^  and  My  people 
love  it  so."*  "  From  prophet  even  unto  the  priest 
every  one  dealeth  falsely.  They  have  healed  also  the 
hurt  of  My  people  lightly,  saying,  Peace,  peace,  but 
there  is  no  peace." ^  Prophet  and  priest  were  leagued 
for  wrong,  and  the  people  eagerly  grasped  the  com- 
forting delusion. 

This  was  one  of  the  serious  difficulties  which  the 
true  prophet  had  to  meet  all  the  time.  How  could 
he  persuade  the  people  to  accept  the  truth  when 
other   prophets  were    teaching   falsehood  ?      "  Then 

^  Jer.  XX.  7.  -  Jer.  i,  19. 

'  That  is,  by  their  power.  So  the  Chronicler  assigns  to  the  prophets 
the  regulation  of  priestly  duties  (2  Chron.  xxix.  25  ;  cf.  Dan.  ix.  10). 
See  additional  note  (4). 

^  Jer.  V.  30  f.  '  Jer.  vi.  13  f. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       295 

said  I,  Ah,  Lord  Jahveh  !  lo,  the  prophets  are  saying 
unto  them,  You  shall  not  see  sword,  and  there  will 
be  no  famine  for  you :  but  I  will  give  you  assured 
peace  in  this  place." ^  The  answer  was  sufficient  for 
Jeremiah — would  that  the  people  had  seen  its  truth  ! 
"Then  Jahveh  said  to  me,  A  lie  the  prophets  are 
prophesying  in  My  name :  I  did  not  send  them,  nor 
did  I  give  them  a  command,  nor  did  I  even  speak  to 
them  :  they  prophesy  unto  you  a  lying  vision,  and 
divination,  and  a  thing  of  nought,  and  the  deceit  of 
their  own  heart."  ^ 

In  chapter  xxiii.  we  find  a  severe  indictment  of 
the  deceivers  of  the  people  with  the  formal  heading 
"  concerning  the  prophets."  It  is  too  long  to  quote, 
but  I  will  give  the  substance  in  as  few  words  as 
possible.  The  holy  words  of  Jahveh  are  painful  to 
me ;  for  the  people  are  deep  in  sin,  and  the  prophet 
and  priest  are  alike  profane,  even  carrying  their 
wickedness  into  the  sacred  temple.  The  prophets  of 
Baal  led  Israel  to  her  doom,  and  the  prophets  of 
Jerusalem  are  no  better,  for  they  commit  adultery, 
walk  in  lies,  and  strengthen  the  hands  of  evil-doers. 
The  people  are  warned  not  to  listen  to  the  mislead- 
ing words  of  their  deceivers.  They  love  to  cry, 
"Thus  saith  Jahveh,"  but  Jahveh  sent  no  message  by 
them  ;  they  love  to  cry,  "  I  have  dreamed,  I  have 
dreamed,"  but  their  false  visions  cause  God's  people 
to  forget  His  name.  These  prophets  have  no  word 
from  God,  and  steal  it  every  one  from  his  neighbour 
— clerical  plagiarism,  it  seems,  is  as  old  as  it  is 
abominable.     The    prophetic    cry,  "the    burden    of 

^  Jer.  xiv.  13.  '^  Jer.  xiv.  14. 


296  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

Jahveh,"  has  been  so  dragged  down  by  their  lying 
visions,  that  Jahveh  forbids  its  utterance  any  more. 

At  a  critical  hour  in  Judah's  history,  Jeremiah 
stood  before  king  Zedekiah.  The  king,  though 
owing  his  crown  to  the  king  of  Babylon,  vainly 
thought  that  he  was  strong  enough  safely  to  violate 
his  oath  of  allegiance  to  Nebuchadrezzar.  The  host 
of  prophets,  whose  chief  concern  was  the  royal 
favour,  easily  found  messages  to  support  his  convic- 
tion. Jeremiah  had  no  such  delusion.  He  breaks  in 
on  the  conference  engaged  in  planning  a  confeder- 
ated revolt,  telling  them  that  they  must  wear  the 
yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon.  No  confidence  is  to 
be  placed  in  the  prophetic  assurances,  for  they 
prophesy  lies ;  they  were  not  sent  by  the  Lord.^ 
Jeremiah  warns  the  priests  too  not  to  trust  in  those 
deceiving  voices  which  declare  that  the  sacred  vessels 
of  the  temple  should  soon  be  brought  from  Babylon. 
If  they  are  true  prophets,  and  have  the  ear  of  the 
Lord,  they  had  better  spend  their  time  in  interceding 
that  the  few  vessels  still  left  in  the  temple  be  not  also 
carried  away. 

Jeremiah  lived  to  see  the  discomfiture  of  the  time- 
serving prophets,  and  of  those  who  had  put  their 
trust  in  them.  In  the  closing  days  of  the  national 
life,  when  the  capital  city  was  invested  by  hostile 
armies,  and  when  the  blindest  could  see  that  the 
blow  must  fall  soon,  this  prophet  significantly  asked 
the  king :  "  Where  now  are  your  prophets  which 
prophesied  unto  you,  saying,  The  king  of  Babylon 
shall  not  come  against  you,  nor  against  the  land  ?  "^ 

^  Jer.  xxvii.  -  Jer.  xxxvii.  19. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       297 

We  must  turn  now  to  see  what  Jeremiah  has  to 
say  about  the  other  great  phase  of  the  popular 
religion,  the  sacrificial  system.  The  Lord  declares 
that  the  people  have  rejected  His  law:  "Why  then 
comes  there  to  Me  frankincense  from  Sheba,  and  the 
sweet  cane  from  a  far  country?  Your  burnt  offer- 
ings are  not  acceptable,  nor  your  sacrifices  pleasing 
unto  Me."^  Again  the  prophet  says,  "Add  your 
burnt  offerings  unto  your  sacrifices,  and  eat  ye  flesh" 
— Jahveh's  part  and  your  own  you  may  eat,  for  it 
is  nothing  but  flesh.  "  I  did  not  speak  to  your 
fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in  the  day  that  I 
brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning 
burnt  offerings  or  sacrifice."-  The  sacrificial  system 
was  neither  ancient  nor  authoritative,  and  what- 
ever value  it  may  have  had  was  lost  by  reason 
of  the  wickedness  of  the  people :  "  When  they  fast, 
I  will  not  hear  their  cry ;  and  when  they  offer  burnt 
offering  and  oblation,  I  will  not  accept  them."^  These 
passages  are  quite  enough  to  show  that  Jeremiah 
did  not  believe  that  the  priestly  law  was  of  Mosaic 
origin,  or  that  a  holy  and  just  God  could  be  recon- 
ciled by  sacrifice,  which  meant  no  more  than  so  much 
flesh  and  blood. 

But  an  institution  might  be  good  without  owning 
Moses  as  its  author.  That  Jeremiah  was  not  an 
image  -  breaker  may  be  inferred  from  his  remarks 
about  the  Sabbath.  He  commands  the  people  in 
the  name  of  his  God  to  bear  no  burden  on  the 
Sabbath  day,  nor  to  do  any  work,  but  to  hallow  the 

^  Jer.  vi.  20.  ^  Jer.  vii.  21  f. 

'  Jer.  xiv.  12. 


298  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

day  as  God  had  commanded.^  In  other  words,  he 
insisted  upon  the  observance  of  the  Decalogue.  This 
commandment  seemed  to  Jeremiah  fraught  with 
moral  power,  and  therefore  he  endorsed  it  heartily. 
Sacrifices  were  offered  as  a  substitute  for  virtue,  and 
were  therefore  intolerable. 

There  was  a  popular  superstition  which  gave  the 
people  much  comfort,  affording  another  bubble  for 
this  prophet  to  prick.  The  temple  had  become  a 
very  sacred  place,  and  even  in  the  highest  thought 
it  seemed  that  Jahveh  was  bound  to  it  in  some 
mysterious  way,  so  that  misfortune  to  the  temple 
meant  misfortune  to  God.  This  was  an  old  super- 
stition in  a  new  form.  In  the  early  days  of  Samuel, 
when  the  people  were  hard  pressed  by  the  Philistines, 
they  thought  that  by  taking  the  sacred  ark  into  the 
battle  they  could  compel  the  presence  of  Jahveh,  and 
consequently  His  favourable  intervention.  Their  eyes 
should  have  been  opened  by  the  capture  of  the  ark. 
Jeremiah  found  those  who  cried  "  the  temple  of  the 
Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord  are  these,"  and  believed 
that  in  that  fact  they  found  assurance  of  safety.  No, 
it  will  not  be.     It  is  vain  for  thieves  and  murderers 

'  Jer.  xvii.  19  ff.  Duhm  and  others,  as  we  might  readily  suppose, 
look  upon  this  passage  as  spurious,  on  the  ground  that  it  belongs  to 
the  interests  of  the  trito-Isaiah,  Nehemiah,  and  their  followers.  Why 
so  ?  This  law  was  published  in  Jeremiah's  day,  and  opposed  as  he 
was  to  the  priestly  system,  he  may  have  adhered  to  the  Decalogue, 
just  as  the  Puritans  struggled  fiercely  against  sacerdotalism,  but  were 
strict  Sabbatarians.  Jeremiah  would  probably  take  positions  in  the 
enthusiasm  of  the  days  of  reform  which  he  would  not  follow  up  in  later 
days,  when  he  was  occupied  with  graver  matters  than  the  Sabbath. 
The  Church  needs  to  learn  that  to-day  there  are  weightier  matters 
than  the  observance  of  Sunday. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       299 

to  come  into  the  house  which  is  called  by  God's 
name,  and  say,  "  We  are  delivered."  So  far  from  the 
sanctity  of  the  temple  saving  the  polluted  people, 
God  would  destroy  this  temple,  even  as  He  had 
destroyed  Shiloh  long  before. 

More  than  any  other  prophet  Jeremiah  came  into 
conflict  with  the  powers  that  be  ;  for  men  are  ever 
intolerant  when  riding  to  their  doom.  In  his  time 
there  was,  it  is  true,  a  ray  of  hope  in  the  reformation 
of  Josiah,  but  the  good  effect  of  this  effort  was 
destroyed  by  the  king's  untimely  death.  After  his 
day  Judah's  course  to  destruction  was  swift,  both 
morally  and  politically.  It  was  a  time  when  even  the 
leaders  of  the  people  were  unwilling  to  hear  rebukes, 
when  they  wanted  no  man  to  show  them  a  more 
excellent  way,  and  yet  God  would  not  let  them 
perish  without  sending  "Moses  and  the  prophets." 
But  the  man  who  spoke  brave  words  at  such  a  time 
and  to  such  a  people  was  sure  to  have  a  sad  ex- 
perience, and  to  know  the  full  measure  of  human 
suffering. 

Jeremiah's  remarks  about  the  temple  first  kindled 
the  flame.  The  priests,  prophets,  and  people  laid  hold 
of  him,  saying,  "  Thou  shalt  surely  die."  Jeremiah 
had  spoken  blasphemy  in  his  speech  about  the 
temple,  and  he  was  brought  to  trial  on  the  same 
charge  which  cost  our  dear  Lord  His  life.  It  was 
a  capital  offence,  and  the  leaders  of  the  Church  were 
hungry  for  blood.  But  the  prophet's  time  had  not 
yet  come,  and  he  was  acquitted  by  the  powerful 
intervention  of  Ahikam  the  son  of  Shaphan.^ 

^  Jer.  xxvi.     See  further  on  this  passage  in  chap.  x. 


300  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

There  was  another  plot  of  which  we  know  but 
Httle,  and  yet  that  Httle  shows  the  source  of  the  per- 
secution, and  that  at  one  period  at  least  both  prophet 
and  priest  felt  that  their  power  was  slipping  away 
on  account  of  Jeremiah's  teaching.  Here  is  the 
passage :  "  And  they  said,  Come,  let  us  devise  devices 
against  Jeremiah ;  for  the  law  shall  not  perish  from 
the  priest,  nor  counsel  from  the  wise,  nor  the  word 
from  the  prophet.  Come,  let  us  smite  him  with  the 
tongue,  and  let  us  not  give  heed  to  any  of  his  words." ^ 
Whatever  the  nature  of  this  conspiracy,  it  was 
certainly  successful  in  drawing  from  Jeremiah  some 
fierce  imprecations. ^  We  do  not  need  to  endorse 
his  savage  curses,  nor  have  we  a  right  to  forget  that 
he  lived  six  centuries  before  Christ,  and  we  in  the 
twentieth  century  after  Christ. 

One  of  the  hardest  of  Jeremiah's  trials  came  from 
the  hands  of  Pashhur  the  priest,  and  chief  officer  of 
the  temple.  He  was  so  incensed  at  the  message  of 
woe  that  he  seized  Jeremiah  and  kept  him  all  night 
in  the  stocks.  Did  he  break  his  spirit  and  silence 
him  by  this  punishment  ?  Let  us  see  the  situation  : 
Pashhur  has  released  his  prisoner  in  the  morning, 
and  he  stands  before  him  stiff  and  sore  in  body, 
but  fierce  and  strong  in  spirit ;  and  these  are  his 
words :  "  Not  Pashhur  has  Jahveh  called  thy  name, 
but  Magor-missabib  (terror  on  every  side) :  for  thus 
saith  Jahveh,  Lo,  I  will  make  thee  a  terror  to  thyself, 
and  to  all  thy  friends.  By  the  sword  of  their  foes 
they  shall  fall  in  the  sight  of  thine  eyes.  And  thou, 
Pashhur,  and  all  that  dwell  in  thy  house,  shall  go  to 

^  Jer.  xviii.  i8.  ^  Jer.  xviii.  21  ff. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       301 

Babylon  as  captives  and  die  there  and  be  buried 
there,  thou  and  all  thy  friends  to  whom  thou  hast 
prophesied  falsely."^  The  prophet  and  the  Church 
could  not  stand  very  close  together  in  the  face  of 
such  conditions.  We  need  scarcely  be  surprised, 
however,  that  a  reaction  came  when  poor  Jeremiah 
was  alone,  and  that  he  cried  out  that  God  had 
deceived  him:  for  he  felt  that  there  was  no  use  stand- 
ing alone  any  more,  as  Church  and  State  persistently 
sought  his  life ;  so  he  resolved  to  give  up  his  sacred 
office,  and  was  only  held  to  his  duty  by  the  Divine 
fire  in  his  bones  which  was  bound  to  burn  its  way 
out.  Jeremiah  had  to  learn  by  bitter  experience  the 
truth  of  Emerson's  words,  "  The  seer  must  be  a 
sayer." 

In  the  fourth  year  of  Zedekiah,  but  a  few  years 
before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  Hananiah  openly 
challenged  Jeremiah,  when  they  were  both  standing 
before  a  company  of  priests  and  people,  by  crying : 
"  Thus  saith  Jahveh,  I  have  broken  the  yoke  of  the 
king  of  Babylon.  Within  two  years  will  I  bring 
back  to  this  place  all  the  vessels  of  the  house  of 
Jahveh  which  Nebuchadrezzar  the  king  of  Babylon 
has  taken  from  this  place  and  carried  to  Babylon. 
And  Jeconiah  the  son  of  Jehoiakim  the  king  of 
Judah  and  all  the  captives  of  Judah  who  were 
carried  to  Babylon  I  will  bring  back  to  this  place, 
saith  Jahveh ;  for  I  will  break  the  yoke  of  the  king 
of  Babylon."  2 

Let  us  pause  a  moment  to  see  the  situation  which 
Jeremiah  had  to  face.    It  is  easy  to  say  that  Hananiah 

^  Jer.  XX.  3  ff.  condensed.  -  Jer.  xxviii.  2  ff. 


302  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

was  a  false  prophet,^  to  whom  the  people  had  no 
right  to  listen.  It  is  easy  to  say  the  same  thing  of 
all  the  other  prophets  who  stood  against  Jeremiah 
and  his  like.  It  is  easy  to  see  now  that  they  were 
false  prophets,  because  they  did  not  speak  God's 
truth  to  the  people.  But  a  careful  investigation 
shows  that  they  were  not  properly  called  false 
prophets,  and  did  not  stand  before  the  people  as 
wolves  in  sheep's  clothing.  They  were  the  members 
of  the  established  order,-  and  so  far  had,  perhaps, 
a  better  claim  upon  the  people's  confidence  than 
Jeremiah  himself  Notice  that  the  chapter  relating 
this  encounter  is  written  in  the  first  person,  and  is 
therefore  autobiographical  ;^  yet  Jeremiah  himself  ac- 
cords to  his  mistaken  opponent  the  title  of  prophet.^ 
Jeremiah's  answer  is  not  very  strong.  He  appears 
to  have  been  face  to  face  with  a  situation  too  puzzling 
for  him  to  grapple  with  for  the  moment,  perhaps  by 
reason  of  his  surprise.     "  Amen,"  said  Jeremiah  to 

^  The  Septuagint  text  calls  Hananiah  a  false  prophet ;  rendering 
N^33  in  Jer.  xxviii.  i  by  \^f  uSoTrpo^^riyj.  This  represents  the  judgment 
of  a  time  long  after  Jeremiah.     See  also  p.  io6  ff. 

^  See  further  in  chap.  iv. 

'  Duhm  follows  Cornill  in  emending  the  text  of  Jer.  xxviii.  I  by 
striking  out  ^7S,  and  rendering  "and  Hananiah  said  unto  the  priests 
and  to  all  the  people  in  the  house  of  Jahveh."  The  point  he  makes 
is  that  Jeremiah  is  everywhere  spoken  of  in  the  third  person.  But  this 
much  emending  would  require  more,  for  'JT?  means  "  in  the  presence 
of,"  and  this  would  have  to  be  struck  out  in  ver.  i,  and  twice  in 
ver.  5.  Moreover,  the  very  point  of  the  whole  discussion  is  that 
Hananiah  was  directly  contradicting  Jeremiah's  plea  to  wear  the  yoke 
of  Babylon  (Jer.  xxvii. ).  The  change  of  text  is  unnecessary,  has 
no  support  in  the  versions,  and  impairs  the  force  of  the  prophecy. 

■*  "  Hananiah  the  son  of  Azzur,  the  prophet"  (Jer.  xxviii.  i). 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       303 

his  antagonist,  "  may  Jahveh  do  so ;  may  Jahveh 
confirm  your  words.  You  speak  good  news,  and 
I  speak  bad  news.  Look  back  and  answer  from 
history  which  is  likely  to  be  the  true  forecast  of  this 
people's  fate."  Hananiah  broke  the  yoke  which 
Jeremiah  was  wearing  on  his  neck  as  a  symbol  of 
submission  ;  but  a  symbol  and  the  thing  symbolised 
are  not  always  the  same.  Nothing  was  easier  than 
to  wrest  the  yoke  from  the  prophet's  neck ;  nothing 
was  more  impossible  than  the  wresting  of  Judah 
from  the  hand  of  Babylon.  Jeremiah  declared  that 
a  yoke  of  iron  would  take  the  place  of  the  yoke 
of  wood,  and  that  Hananiah,  who  made  the  people 
believe  a  lie,  would  atone  for  his  sins  by  his  death  ; 
"  and  Hananiah  the  prophet  died  in  that  year  in  the 
seventh  month," ^  two  months  after  his  bold  predic- 
tion of  peace. 

We  cannot  follow  Jeremiah  through  the  even 
bitterer  sufferings  yet  in  store  for  him.  The  priests 
and  prophets  had  tried  in  vain  to  accomplish  his 
destruction.  When  they  gave  it  up,  the  State  took 
a  hand,  and  then  truly  Jeremiah  experienced  living 
martyrdom.  But  he  survived  to  see  his  persecutors 
prisoners  in  Babylonia,  and  the  Church,  which  had 
resisted  the  only  power  to  save  it,  in  hopeless  decay. 
The  Church  departed  further  and  further  from  the 
teaching  of  the  great  prophets,  and  so  became  the 
deadly  formal  thing  which  Jesus  found  when  He 
came  to  earth. 

Zephaniah,  a  contemporary  of  Jeremiah,  saw 
disaster  threatening  his  land  and  people,  and  naturally 

^  Jer.  xxviii.  17, 


304  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

looked  about  to  see  what  forces  were  at  work  which 
might  avert  the  calamity.  Alas  for  the  day !  for 
both  State  and  Church  were  on  the  side  of  evil. 
"  Her  princes  in  the  midst  of  her  are  roaring  lions ; 
her  judges  are  evening  wolves ;  they  leave  nothing 
till  the  morrow.  Her  prophets  are  light  and  treacher- 
ous persons ;  her  priests  have  profaned  the  sanctuary, 
they  have  done  violence  to  the  law."^  There  could 
be  no  harmonious  co-operation  between  a  prophet, 
zealous  for  truth  and  righteousness,  and  a  Church  so 
corrupt  that  even  the  leaders  are  not  to  be  trusted. 

Ezekiel  was  at  heart  much  under  the  influence 
of  his  priesthood  ;  we  might  call  him  a  zealous  high 
Churchman ;  but  he  never  forgot,  as  an  American 
bishop  has  put  it,  to  take  a  broad  view  from  a 
high  standpoint.  He  was  zealous  for  the  law,  for 
the  temple,  and  for  all  the  Divine  institutions  of 
religion.  But  he  was  not  blind  to  the  fact  that  the 
Church  as  it  was  could  hardly  claim  the  favour  of 
a  holy  God,  who  always  regarded  the  inward  and 
spiritual  above  the  outward  and  visible. 

This  priest-prophet  was  enabled  to  learn  a  great 
truth  from  that  most  effective  of  teachers,  experience. 
The  attitude  of  many  Jews  in  exile  is  expressed 
in  the  pathetic  inquiry :  "  How  shall  we  sing  Jahveh's 
song  in  a  foreign  land  ?  ''^  Without  temple  or  altar — 
and  the  law  forbade  an  altar  except  at  Jerusalem — 
many   exiles   felt   like   David   did,^  that  they  were 

^  Zeph.  iii.  3  f.  "^  Psalm  cxxxvii.  4. 

^  When  David  was  hiding  in  the  hill  of  Hachilah,  he  complained 
that  "  they  had  driven  him  out  that  he  could  not  join  himself  with  the 
inheritance  of  Judah,  saying,  Go,  serve  other  gods"  (i  Sam.  xxvi.  19). 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       305 

separated  from  God.  Probably  Ezekiel  felt  so  at  first, 
but  the  visions  taught  him  that  God's  voice  was 
effective  in  Babylon  as  well  as  in  Judah.  O,  that  men 
would  learn  (adapting  Emerson  slightly)  that  God  not 
merely  was,  but  is ;  that  He  not  merely  spoke,  but 
speaks.  Ezekiel  is  led  to  see  that  God  Himself 
would  be  a  sanctuary  for  a  little  while  to  all  that 
sought  Him  in  the  countries  where  they  are  come  ;^ 
as  someone  has  put  it,  "  God  without  the  temple 
is  better  than  the  temple  without  God." 

God  would  be  a  living  temple  to  those  in  exile, 
but  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  was  barren  of  the 
Divine  presence,  and  so  its  consecration  became  null 
and  void.  Thus  Ezekiel  explains  a  problem  which 
had  puzzled  many.  The  temple  was  so  sacred  to 
Jahveh  that  His  failure  to  defend  it  to  the  utmost 
was  inconceivable.  To  abandon  the  place  called  by 
His  name  would  be  an  inconceivable  confession  of 
weakness.  Hence  the  confidence  of  the  people  who 
cried,  "  The  temple  of  Jahveh  is  here,"  and  regarded  it 
as  a  sure  talisman  of  safety.  Yes,  said  Ezekiel,  your 
major  premises  are  all  right.  Jahveh  is  omnipotent. 
Before  Him  all  the  armies  of  the  world  are  but 
pigmies.  As  long  as  the  temple  was  the  place  where 
Jahveh  had  caused  His  name  to  dwell,  it  was  in- 
violable. But  Jahveh  has  withdrawn  from  the  sanc- 
tuary  of    Zion :    "  Then   did    the   cherubim    spread 

Being  outside  of  Jahveh's  bounds,  he  could  not  worship  his  God.  So 
Naaman  the  Syrian  felt  that  in  order  to  worship  Jahveh  in  Damascus 
he  must  carry  away  a  bit  of  the  soil  of  Jahveh's  land  (2  Kings  v.  17). 
To  this  day  there  is  a  fondness  for  baptism  with  water  carried  from  the 
river  Jordan. 
^  Ezek.  xi.  16. 


3o6  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

their  wings,  and  the  wheels  were  beside  them  ;  and 
the  glory  of  the  God  of  Israel  was  over  them  above. 
And  the  glory  of  Jahveh  rose  from  the  midst  of  the 
city,  and  stood  on  the  mountain  which  is  eastward  of 
the  city."^  Jahveh  abandons  the  wicked  city  to  its 
fate,  for  the  temple  has  become  unclean,  and  so  is  no 
longer  a  fit  habitation  for  Him  ;  and  without  Jahveh 
the  temple  is  of  no  avail. 

Yet  Ezekiel's  feeling  for  the  temple  was  so  strong 
that  he  could  not  but  hold  the  impious  hand  lifted 
against  it  as  guilty.  At  the  head  of  Ammon's  sins 
stands  their  blasphemous  cry,  "  Aha,"  when  the 
sanctuary  was  profaned.^  So  a  later  poet-prophet 
prayed  against  Edom : — 

"  Remember,  Jahveh,  against  the  sons  of  Edom, 
The  day  of  Jerusalem, 

Who  were  crying,  Rase  it,  rase  it  [the  temple] 
Even  to  the  foundation  thereof."^ 

God  was  driven  away  from  His  sanctuary,  not  by 
Babylonian  arms,  but  by  the  gross  impurity  of 
His  own  chosen  people.  We  have  already  seen* 
how  the  leading  men  were  engaged  in  idolatrous 
worship  in  various  forms  in  the  sacred  precincts. 
Ezekiel  does  not  mention  any  priests^  as  participants, 
but  as  they  had  acquiesced,  whereas  they  should 
have  resisted  even  at  the  cost  of  their  lives,  they 
were  adjudged  guilty.  The  evil  condition  may  be- 
come such  that  even  the  benign  Son  of  Man  must 

^  Ezek.  xi.  22  f.  ^  Ezek.  xxv.  3. 

^  Psalm  cxxxvii.  7,  *  See  chap.  x. 

*  The  "elders"  mentioned  (Ezek.  viii.  11)  were  civil  officers. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       307 

needs  take  a  scourge  to  drive  out  those  who  were 
defiling  God's  courts. 

The  work  of  destruction  was  committed  to  the  six 
mysterious  beings,  each  with  his  slaughter  weapon  in 
his  hand/  and  from  whose  blows  those  only  were 
exempt  upon  whose  forehead  the  scribe  had  placed 
a  mark.  When  they  commenced  operations  this 
significant  command  was  given,  "  Begin  at  My  sanc- 
tuary," 2  for  there  the  most  culpable  would  be  found. 
They  were  ordered  to  defile  the  house  by  filling  the 
courts  with  the  slain. 

Ezekiel  knew  that  many  of  the  woes  of  Jerusalem 
were  due  to  the  misguiding  voices  of  those  who  gave 
messages  in  the  name  of  Jahveh.  He  has  a  prophecy 
against  these  deluding  voices.^  They  "  speak  out  of 
their  own  heart,"  that  is,  follow  their  own  inclination. 
They  have  been  to  Israel  like  foxes  in  the  waste 
places.  They  have  made  men  hope  for  that  which 
would  never  come  to  pass.  Women  as  well  as  men 
were  involved  in  this  guilt.  For  handfuls  of  barley 
and  for  pieces  of  bread  (fees)  they  had  profaned  God 
among  the  people,  trying  to  save  the  worthless  and 
to  destroy  the  good.* 

The  priests  were  equally  at  fault.  They  have  done 
violence  to  the  law,  and  have  profaned  the  holy 
things,  confusing  the  holy  and  the  common,  and 
annulling  the  Sabbath  law.^  Jerusalem  would  fall, 
not  because  of  her  ecclesiastical  institutions,  but 
because  the  wickedness  of  men  would  make  them  of 
no  effect. 

^  Ezek.  ix.  2.  ^  Ezek.  ix.  6.  ^  Ezek.  xiii. 

■•  Ezek.  xiii.  17  ff.  ^  Ezek.  xxii.  26. 


3o8  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Ezekiel  looked  upon  the  Church  as  playing  a  great 
role  in  the  restoration  which  would  come  in  the 
future.  In  the  new  Jerusalem  no  prophet  appears, 
but  the  temple  area  occupies  a  large  part  of  Jewish 
territory,  that  is,  the  whole  land  would  be  sacred ;  and 
the  priest  holds  a  position  superior  even  to  that  of 
the  prince. 

There  was  a  prophet  whose  name  we  do  not  know, 
but  whose  works  place  him  at  the  very  forefront  of 
all  the  men  of  God  in  Hebrew  history — the  author 
of  Isaiah  liii.  Whether  he  lived  in  the  exile,  or  in 
the  dark  days  in  Jerusalem  which  followed  the 
restoration,  it  is  not  easy  to  say.  Whether  he  is 
depicting  the  fortunes  of  an  individual  or  of  the 
nation  of  Israel  is  a  moot  question.  I  can  only 
venture  my  opinion  that  the  experience  so  feelingly 
described  is  that  of  a  martyr  for  righteousness'  sake, 
and  that  the  scene  of  his  sufferings  was  on  foreign  soil. 

The  sufferer  had  been  a  prophet  in  the  true  sense  ; 
he  had  been  a  stout  upholder  of  the  religion  of 
Jahveh ;  and  his  steadfastness  in  that  religion  had 
brought  him  into  the  toils.  He  was  entirely  un- 
supported by  the  men  of  his  own  race ;  indeed,  they 
looked  upon  his  tribulations  as  not  only  inflictions 
from  God,  but  as  just  punishments  for  his  wrong. 

Some  of  the  people  came  to  see  their  error.  They 
not  only  could  admire  the  great  fortitude  of  one  who 
went  to  the  slaughter  like  a  lamb,  but  they  came  to 
see  that  the  suffering  endured  was  vicarious,  the 
innocent  suffering  for  the  guilty.  It  is  not  surprising 
that  after  the  Passion  of  our  Lord,  this  passage  took 
an  exalted  place  in  Messianic  prophecy. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       309 

But  the  number  of  those  who  saw  their  error  must 
have  been  small.  There  could  have  been  no  general 
opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  Jewish  Church  even  to  a 
single  concrete  fact  like  this.  For  if  the  Jews  had 
followed  their  prophets,  in  this  and  other  cases,  their 
political  history  might  have  been  much  the  same : 
they  might  still  have  been  in  bondage  to  Egypt, 
Philistia,  Assyria,  Babylon,  and  Rome  ;  but  they 
would  not  have  crucified  their  Messiah.  Only  the 
children  of  those  who  slew  the  prophets  could  have 
led  Jesus  Christ  to  Calvary.  The  noble  prophecy  is 
in  truth  a  forecast  as  well  as  a  history ;  for  without  a 
great  change  in  sentiment,  the  race  which  could  gloat 
over  this  innocent  victim  would  not  scruple  to  take 
the  life  of  one  greater  than  their  father  Abraham. 

But  the  prophets  had  to  learn  not  to  fear  man, 
who  could  destroy  only  the  body,  but  God,  who 
could  destroy  both  body  and  soul.  They  were  bound 
to  discover  in  due  season  that  the  world,  or  even  the 
Church,  which  should  embody  the  highest  stage  of 
religious  enlightenment,  does  not  welcome  a  voice 
out  of  harmony  with  its  institutions.  Another  pro- 
phet of  the  same  period  describes  his  own  fate,  and 
shows  thereby  how  his  message  was  received  by  his 
fellows  : — 

"  The  Lord  Jahveh  has  given  me  the  tongue  of 
disciples  to  know  how  to  sustain  the  weary  with  a 
word.  He  quickens  by  morning,  by  morning  He 
quickens  in  me  the  ear  to  hear  as  disciples.  The 
Lord  Jahveh  opened  my  ear,  and  I  was  not  obstinate, 
nor  did  I  turn  back  [from  the  dangerous  message]. 
I  bent  my  back  to  those  who  smite,  and  my  cheeks  I 


310  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

turned  to  those  who  pluck  the  beard ;  I  turned  not 
my  face  from  abuse  and  spitting.  The  Lord  Jahveh 
strengthens  me ;  therefore  I  am  not  confounded, 
therefore  I  set  my  face  like  flint,  and  know  that  I 
shall  not  be  confused."  ^ 

One  might  imagine  that  such  a  story  comes  from 
an  age  when  there  was  a  regularly  established  in- 
quisition to  suppress  those  who  adhered  to  the  true 
message  from  God.  The  worst  persecutions  of  the 
Christians  were  not  those  inflicted  by  Jews  or 
Romans,  but  those  devised  by  their  brethren  of  the 
same  faith.  No  foreign  punishment  compared  in 
severity  to  the  Spanish  Inquisition.  So  the  worst 
afflictions  of  the  Hebrew  prophet  came  ever  from 
the  Jewish  Church. 

In  the  post-exilic  period  the  prophets  stand  in 
close  and  friendly  relation  to  the  Church.  The  first 
of  them,  Haggai,  as  we  have  already  seen,^  was 
chiefly  concerned  with  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple. 
We  find  in  him  a  sad  decline  from  the  great  spiritual 
leaders  who  had  preceded  him ;  for  he  seems  to  look 
upon  the  temple  as  the  talisman  by  whose  instru- 
mentality peace  and  prosperity  would  come  to  the 
new  Israel.  He  explains  the  dearth  and  hardship 
which  characterised  the  early  days  of  the  restoration 
as  due  to  the  neglect  of  the  temple.^  The  people 
had  sought  each  one  his  own  welfare,  but  when 
asked  to  join  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  house  of  the 
Lord,  had  replied,  "  The  time  is  not  come."*  God 
punished  the  people  for  their  indifference  by  causing 

^  Isa.  1.  4  ff.  ^  See  chap.  x. 

^  Hag.  i.  5-1 1.  ■*  Hag.  i.  2. 


RELATION   TO   THE  CHURCH       311 

the  heavens  to  withhold  the  dew  and  the  earth  its 
fruit.^ 

Haggai  had  to  appeal  not  only  to  the  people,  but 
to  the  governor,  and  to  the  high-priest,  Joshua.  Even 
the  latter  seems  to  have  shown  no  zeal  for  the  re- 
storation of  the  ritual  until  aroused  by  the  prophet.^ 
After  the  foundation  was  laid,  Haggai  again  reviews 
the  history  of  the  times,  explaining  the  dearth  as  a 
Divine  punishment ;  but  now  that  the  work  of  recon- 
structing the  temple  is  under  way,  he  promises  that 
from  that  day  forward  God  will  bless  the  land  with 
plenty.^ 

Zechariah  seems  to  have  taken  a  prominent  part 
in  the  investiture  of  the  high-priest  Joshua.  At  least 
Ewald's  explanation  of  that  somewhat  mysterious 
passage  in  chapter  iii.  seems  to  me  still  the  most 
probable.  The  priest  had  been  constrained  to  exer- 
cise his  functions  in  garments  that  were  unsuitable  to 
the  high  office.  The  opposition  was  so  vigorous  that 
the  prophet  presents  the  picture  of  Satan  standing 
against  the  priest.  The  people  were  seemingly  as  un- 
willing to  contribute  for  ecclesiastical  vestments  as  for 
temple  building.  But  the  prophet  triumphs  and  sees 
the  priest  clothed  in  the  rich  apparel  which  belonged 
to  his  office,  and  with  a  clean  mitre  upon  his  head. 

Zechariah  succeeded  in  persuading  certain  men 
who  had  returned  from  exile,  and  who  were  appar- 
ently possessed  of  considerable  means,  to  provide 
gold  and  silver  to  make  crowns  for  the  high-priest. 
In  crowning  Joshua,  Zechariah  even  goes  so  far  as  to 
declare  that  the  priest  finds  in  himself  the  fulfilment 

^  Hag.  i.  10.  2  Hag.  i.  14.  ^  Hag.  ii.  10-19. 


312  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

of  his  Messianic  prophecy ;  ^  for  he  is  the  very 
Branch  who  shall  build  the  temple,  and  bear  the 
glory,  and  rule  upon  the  throne.  Ezekiel's  prophecy 
is  fulfilled,  and  we  have  fairly  established  in  this  era 
a  form  of  government  in  which  the  civil  power  is 
subordinate  to  the  ecclesiastical.  Alas !  that  no 
Church,  Jewish  or  Christian,  has  ever  been  able  to 
bear  that  supremacy.  We  may  content  ourselves 
with  the  belief  that  the  failure  was  due  to  its  not 
being  of  God,  and  that  the  law  "he  that  exalted 
himself  shall  be  humbled "  applies  to  Churches  as 
well  as  to  individuals. 

Priests  and  people  alike  recognise  the  prophet  as 
the  oracle  of  God.  A  grave  question  arises  as  to 
the  observance  of  the  fasts  ^  which  had  been  kept 
during  the  exile,  as  a  mark  of  the  humiliation  of 
that  period  and  as  a  plea  to  Jahveh  to  bring  back 
the  captivity  of  His  people.  Should  those  fasts  be 
still  kept  up,  now  that  their  appropriateness  is  no 
longer  apparent  ?  The  law  threw  no  light  on  such 
a  question,  and  therefore  the  priests  could  give  no 
answer.  They  were  bound  now  to  the  written  law, 
in  which  they  were  the  recognised  authorities.^  The 
prophet,  however,  could  deal  with  this  new  problem  ; 
for  by  him  a  new  revelation  could  come.  And 
Zechariah  rises  to  one  of  his  highest  levels  in  his 
answer :  the  fasts  kept  in  the  exile  were  but  selfish 

1  Zech.  vi.  9  ff.  ;  cf.  iii.  8. 

'^  There  were  four  of  these  fasts  :  that  of  the  fourth  month,  marking 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  (Jer.  xxxix.  2) ;  of  the  fifth,  marking  its 
destruction  (2  Kings  xxv.  8) ;  of  the  seventh,  marking  the  murder  of 
Gedaliah  (Jer.  xli. ) ;  and  of  the  tenth,  marking  the  beginning  of  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem  (2  Kings  xxv.  i).  *  Hag.  ii.  11  fF. 


RELATION    TO   THE   CHURCH       313 

rites  rather  than  an  honour  to  Jahveh  ;^  Jahveh  still 
prefers  mercy  to  sacrifice;  justice,  kindness,  com- 
passion are  the  traits  demanded  by  Him  ;2  therefore 
the  fast  days  shall  become  the  days  of  joy  and  glad- 
ness and  cheerful  feasts;  indicative  of  the  love  of 
truth  and  peace.^ 

"  Malachi"*  is  concerned  about  the  kind  of  sacri- 
ficial offerings  made  by  the  priests.  Between  the 
tribute  from  their  flocks  for  the  governor  and  for  the 
priests,  the  people  doubtless  felt  themselves  to  be  in 
an  evil  case.  There  was  no  shading  of  the  quality 
of  the  governor's  quota ;  but  as  Jahveh's  part  went 
to  the  priests,  it  was  customary  to  offer  inferior 
animals.  Against  this  the  prophet  lifts  his  voice  in 
vigorous  protest :  "  O  priests,  that  despise  My  name. 
You  offer  polluted  bread  upon  My  altar.  You  say, 
The  table  of  Jahveh  is  contemptible.  And  when  you 
offer  the  blind  for  sacrifice,  it  is  no  evil !  and  when 
you  offer  the  lame  and  the  sick,  it  is  no  evil ! "  ^  "  You 
say  also,  Behold,  what  a  weariness  it  is !  and  you 
have  sniffed  at  it.  .  .  .  Cursed  be  the  deceiver,  who 
hath  in  his  flock  a  male,  and  makes  a  vow  and 
sacrifices  unto  the  Lord  a  blemished  thing."  ^  The 
priesthood  has  become  so  corrupt  that  the  prophet 
must  need  hold  up  to  the  priests  the  proper  observ- 
ance of  the  ritual  laws. 

Malachi  has  much  to  say  besides  against  the 
priests.^  He  holds  up  the  true  ideal  of  the  priest- 
hood :  "  The  priest's  lips  should  guard  knowledge, 
and  they  should  seek  the  law  from  his  mouth  ;   for 

^  Zech.  vii.  56".  -  Zech.  vii.  9.     '  Ztch.  viii.  19. 

*  Additional  note  (13).      '  Mai.  i.  6  fF.      '  Mai.  i.  13  fF.      '  Mai.  ii. 


314  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

he  is  the  messenger  of  Jahveh  of  hosts."  ^  The 
actual  condition  was  very  different :  "  You  are  turned 
aside  from  the  way ;  you  have  caused  many  to 
stumble  in  the  law ;  you  have  corrupted  the 
covenant  of  Levi."^ 

Malachi's  idea  of  righteousness  is  the  observance 
of  the  ordinances.^  He  does,  indeed,  say  some 
wholesome  things  against  divorce.^  But  one  of  his 
great  charges  against  the  people  is  that  they  have 
robbed  God  by  failing  to  pay  their  quota  of  tithes 
and  offerings.^  Let  the  people  bring  the  whole  tithe 
into  the  sacred  storehouse,  that  there  may  be  food 
in  the  temple,  and  then  God  will  make  Judah  a 
bountiful  land.° 

Still  more  has  prophecy  lost  its  true  note  in  Joel, 
who  was  probably  the  latest  of  the  canonical  prophets. 
Joel  was  more  priest  than  prophet,  so  that  when 
famine  swept  over  the  land  as  a  result  of  drought 
and  vast  swarms  of  locusts,  the  remedy  proposed  is 
to  seek  the  favour  of  God  by  a  great  fast,  at  v/hich 
the  priests  standing  between  the  porch  and  the  altar 
were  to  say  this  litany  :  "  Spare  Thy  people,  Jahveh, 
and  give  not  Thy  heritage  to  reproach,  that  the 
nations  should  rule  over  them  :  wherefore  should  they 
say  among  the  peoples,  Where  is  their  God  ? "  ^  The 
blessings  which  God  showered  upon  the  land,  by 
driving  away  the  great  army  of  locusts  and  by  pour- 
ing the  rain  from  heaven,  are  traced  to  this  supplica- 
tion of  the  priests. 

1  Mai.  ii.  7.  2  Mai.  ii.  8.  ^  jyiai.  iii.  7. 

*  Mai.  ii.  14  ff.  «  Mai.  iii.  8.  «  Mai.  iii.  10. 

■^  Joel  ii.  17  ;  cf.  Psalm  xlii.  3,  10. 


RELATION   TO   THE   CHURCH       315 

But  Joel  rises  to  a  great  height  once,  when  he 
points  out  the  coming  day  on  which  God's  Spirit 
will  be  poured  upon  all  flesh.^  The  knowledge  of 
God's  will  shall  not  be  limited  to  priest  and  prophet, 
for  the  sons  and  daughters  shall  prophesy,  the  old 
men  shall  dream  dreams,  the  young  men  shall  see 
visions,  and  even  upon  the  servants  and  handmaids 
will  God's  Spirit  be  poured. 

We  see  that  the  voice  of  prophecy  was  becoming 
faint  as  the  sun  sets  on  the  long  day  of  Israel's  great 
religious  fervour.  The  approach  of  the  long  night  of 
legalism  was  at  hand.  There  were  no  great  prophets 
to  avert  the  doom,  and  the  Jewish  Church  sank  into 
that  deadly  state  from  which  Jesus  sought  in  vain 
to  arouse  it. 

The  prophets  never  turned  their  back  upon  the 
Church  ;  the  Church  turned  its  back  upon  them. 
They  never  separated  from  the  Church,  nor  would 
they  be  driven  out.  They  worked  for  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  Church,  but  always  from  the  inside.  In 
this  they  were  followed  by  our  Lord.  He  went  to 
Jerusalem  to  keep  the  feast,  and  went  out  of  the 
city  only  to  go  to  Calvary.  The  Church  finds  much 
opposition  from  outside,  but  criticism  is  always  more 
effective  from  inside.  But  those  on  the  inside  are 
so  apt  to  become  dead  and  blind  like  those  lying 
prophets.  The  Church  should  be  especially  grateful 
for  every  voice  for  betterment  which  comes  from 
within  her  bosom. 

If  the  time  shall   ever   come — it  has   never  yet 
been — when  there  shall   be   but   one  fold  and  one 
1  Joel  ii.  28  ft". 


3i6  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

Shepherd,  there  will  not  then  necessarily  be  a  perfect 
Church ;  but  one  great  element  in  her  power  will  be 
that  all  the  forces  which  make  for  Christian  progress 
and  moral  purity  will  come  from  within. 

In  the  contest  between  the  prophets  and  the 
established  religious  order  of  their  times,  our  sym- 
pathies are  of  course  on  the  side  of  the  prophets.- 
They  were  right  and  the  Church  was  wrong.  But 
the  lessons  of  all  history  warn  us  nevertheless  to  be 
charitable  in  our  judgment.  In  this  enlightened  age 
the  Church  still  occasionally  lays  violent  hands  upon 
a  prophet.  The  Church  has  no  desire  to  crush  truth ; 
she  aims  to  conserve  it.  The  trouble  is  always  due 
to  the  inability  to  see  what  the  truth  actually  is. 

Despite  opposition  and  persecution,  the  Church 
was  influenced  by  the  prophets.  The  Church  always 
in  a  way  heeds  the  voices  of  those  she  martyrs. 
Jastrow  thus  gives  a  general  estimate  of  that  in- 
fluence :  "  The  prophetical  movement  gave  an  ethical 
flavour  to  the  conception  of  the  national  deity  .  .  . 
resulted  in  the  creation  of  an  elaborate  legal  code, 
in  which  all  the  rites  of  the  religion  and  the  functions 
of  the  priesthood  are  brought  into  accord  with  the 
principles  of  ethical  monotheism  as  preached  by  the 
prophets."  ^  Though  the  Jewish  Church  fell  far  away 
from  the  prophetic  ideal,  it  was  at  all  events  the 
better  for  the  preaching  of  the  prophets.  In  the 
long  run  the  prophet  is  bound  to  find  his  audience 
and  exert  his  influence.  However  hard  people  may 
try  to  stop  their  ears,  the  voice  of  truth  slowly 
penetrates  all  obstructions. 

^   The  Study  of  Religion,  p.  79. 


CHAPTER   XIII 
THE   PROPHET'S   VISION 

IN  this  closing  chapter  I  propose  to  gather  up 
some  points  of  interest  which  have  not  found 
a  place  in  the  preceding  discussion.  To  do  this  I 
use  the  term  "  vision  "  in  no  technical  and  limited 
sense,  but  to  indicate  rather  the  prophet's  broad  out- 
look upon  the  world,  and  also  his  conception  of  God. 
His  vision  really  included  both  things.  The  prophet 
became  a  spokesman  because  he  was  first  a  man  with 
a  vision.  The  gloss  in  i  Samuel  ix.  9^  is  correct  in 
one  sense :  it  gives  the  true  order  of  development. 
Nabi  probably  means  speaker  ;2  roeh  certainly  means 
"  one  who  sees."  In  the  course  of  the  development 
of  prophecy  there  must  have  been  men  who  saw 
before  there  were  men  who  said.  So  with  the  in- 
dividual :  a  man  must  be  a  seer  before  he  can  be  a 
prophet.  Isaiah  must  have  his  vision  in  the  temple 
before  he  can  face  Ahaz  at  the  conduit  of  the  upper 
pool." 

The  true  prophet  felt  that  his  power  to  see  was  the 

^  "  He  that  is  now  called  the  prophet  was  beforetime  called  the 
seer  "  ;  see  further  above,  p.  30. 

'  Opinion  is  divided  whether  nabi  means  a  spokesman,  as,  e.g., 
Winckler  maintains,  or  one  who  bubbles  (under  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit),  as,  e.g.,  Kraetzschmar  maintains.     See  additional  note  {14). 

^  Isa.  vii.  3. 

317 


3i8  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

gift  of  God.  His  eyes  saw,  because  Jahveh  had 
opened  them.  His  ears  heard,  because  the  Lord  had 
quickened  them.  Hence  it  was  that  he  stood  by  his 
vision  even  when  it  brought  him  persecution  from 
Church  or  State.  Hence  also  his  isolation  ;  for  the 
prophets  were,  as  a  rule,  men  distrusted  by  their  con- 
temporaries. Rarely  in  all  history  has  a  great 
prophet  had  a  general  following  in  his  lifetime. 
Jeremiah,  Socrates,  and  Jesus  Christ  alike  had  the 
experience  which  belongs  to  the  order  of  prophets, 
Man  seems  to  dislike  and  distrust  a  vision  keener 
than  his  own. 

The  prophet  was  not  only  vouchsafed  occasional 
glimpses  into  the  mysteries  of  heaven,  but  he  felt 
that  he  was  accorded  a  full  knowledge  of  the  Divine 
purposes ;  in  fact,  his  whole  life  seemed  to  be  pos- 
sessed of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  directed  whitherso- 
ever God  would.  The  old  writer  shows  the  prophetic 
idea  when  he  represents  Jahveh  as  constrained  to 
reveal  to  Abraham  His  purpose  to  destroy  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah.^  So  Amos  states  the  broad  principle  : 
"  Verily  the  Lord  Jahveh  will  take  no  action  except 
He  disclose  His  purpose  to  His  servants  the 
prophets."  2 

The  old  seer  Micaiah  knew  that  the  prophets  who 
were  predicting  a  successful  campaign  for  Ahab  were 
altogether  wrong.  He  could  not  explain  their  error 
as  we  can,^  but  was  constrained  to  give  an  interpreta- 

^  Gen.  xviii.  17  ff.  The  passage  is  assigned  to  J.  (the  Jahvist),  the 
oldest  of  the  Pentateuchal  sources,  and  the  one  most  endowed  with  the 
prophetic  spirit. 

"^  Amos  iii.  7.  *  This  incident  is  fully  treated  on  p.  52  ff. 


THE   PROPHET'S   VISION  319 

tion  of  their  fault  in  accordance  with  his  idea  that  the 
prophets  were  entirely  dominated  by  Jahveh.  There- 
fore he  describes  his  vision  of  the  lying  spirit  which 
had  come  down  to  pervert  the  vision  of  Ahab's 
prophets,^  and  so  lead  the  king  to  disaster. 

Shortly  before  the  invasion  of  Sennacherib,  Isaiah 
is  led  to  speak  with  astonishment  of  the  blindness  of 
the  people,  because  they  could  not  see  what  was  press- 
ing so  near.  Apparently  there  were  no  prophetic  voices 
lifted  up  to  warn  the  people,  a  fact  which  required 
explanation.  The  prophet  interpreted  the  silence  of 
the  seers  in  a  way  that  shows  his  idea  of  the  Divine 
dominance  of  the  prophets  :  "  For  Jahveh  has  poured 
upon  you  a  spirit  of  heavy  slumber ;  He  has  tightly 
shut  your  eyes  the  prophets;  and  He  has  covered  your 
heads  the  seers."-  The  prophets  do  not  see  and  the 
seers  do  not  hear ;  the  closing  of  the  eyes  and  the 
covering  of  the  head,  by  which  this  condition  is 
brought  about,  are  only  explicable  as  coming  from 
God.  The  prophet  can  only  speak  as  he  is  moved 
of  God,  and  can  only  keep  silent  as  he  is  restrained 
of  God.  Here,  indeed,  is  a  new  and  fruitful  idea, 
the  inspiration  of  silence.  Such  inspiration  surely  is 
as  necessary  as  any  other.  It  is  sometimes  easier 
to  act  than  to  be  quiet,  easier  to  speak  than  to  hold 
one's  peace.  Our  Blessed  Lord  was  no  whit  less 
conspicuously  the  Son  of  God  when  He  "answered 
not  a  word,"  than  when  He  cried,  "  Woe  unto  you, 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites  ! " 

A  good  illustration  of  the  completeness  of  God's 

^  Ezekiel  held  essentially  the  same  idea  ;  see  Ezek.  xiv.  9. 
^  Isa.  xxix.  10. 


320  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

control  over  the  prophets  is  shown  in  Ezekiel's  dumb- 
ness. The  prophet  was  told  at  the  very  beginning  of 
his  ministry  that  God  would  make  his  tongue  cleave 
to  his  mouth,  so  that  he  would  be  dumb,  and  unable 
to  engage  in  the  useless  task  of  reproving  the  rebel- 
lious house  of  Israel.^  This  dumbness  was  appointed 
to  last  until  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,^  that  is,  for  some 
five  years.  Whether  the  prophet  was  unable  to 
speak  during  all  that  time  may  be  doubtful ;  cer- 
tainly we  have  prophecies  from  the  period.  But  it 
surely  means  that  Ezekiel  was  not  to  prophesy 
actively  during  that  hopeless  time,  when  it  was  clear 
that  neither  the  purpose  of  the  people  to  sin  nor 
the  purpose  of  God  to  punish  could  be  changed. 
And  it  means  that  God's  control  over  His  prophet 
is  absolute. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  hard  facts  so  plainly  told  in 
the  Bible  have  constrained  men  to  abandon  the  un- 
fortunate doctrine  of  mechanical  inspiration.  The 
notion  of  Athenagoras,  "the  Spirit  making  use  of 
them  as  a  flute  player  breathes  into  a  flute,"  ^  offers  a 
theory  of  prophecy  inconsistent  with  the  facts,  and 
unsatisfying  to  man's  aspirations.  Man  rejoices  to  be 
a  servant  of  the  Most  High,  but  desires  to  consecrate 
to  that  service  all  the  faculties  with  which  God  has 
endowed  him.  The  facts  which  I  shall  proceed  to 
point  out  are  not  inconsistent,  however,  with  the 
statement  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  "  Who  spake  by 
the  prophets."  Complete  as  God's  control  of  the 
seer  was,  he  was  never  a  mere  machine  operated  by 

^  Ezek.  iii.  25  f.  ^  Ezek.  xxiv.  27. 

^  A  Plea  for  the  Christians^  chap.  ix. 


THE   PROPHETS   VISION  321 

Divine  power.  He  was  never  constrained  to  lay  aside 
his  natural  intelligence. 

The  prophet  did  not  always  have  immediately  at 
command  a  message  which  was  surely  the  word  of 
God.  Often  he  must  labour  and  struggle  to  catch 
the  suggestion  from  on  high.  Jeremiah  on  one  occa- 
sion waited  ten  days  for  the  required  answer ;  and 
they  must  have  been  days  of  mental  and  spiritual 
travail.  When  the  captains  came  to  the  prophet, 
after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  murder  of 
Gedaliah,  to  know  whether  they  should  go  to  Egypt, 
or  take  their  chances  against  Nebuchadrezzar's  wrath 
by  abiding  in  the  land  of  Judah,  Jeremiah  sent  them 
away,  and  it  was  only  after  ten  days'  waiting  that  he 
was  satisfied  to  give  them  advice  which  he  was  sure 
represented  the  mind  of  God.^ 

The  prophet  might  give  his  oracle  and  then  be  led 
to  change  it.  Nathan  at  first  counselled  David  to 
carry  out  his  purpose  to  build  a  temple  for  Jahveh ; 
but  after  sleeping  over  the  matter,  he  said  positively 
that  David  should  not  build  the  house,  but  that  the 
task  should  be  reserved  for  the  more  peaceful  times 
of  David's  son.2  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  God 
changed  His  mind  during  the  night.  If  Nathan's 
final  advice  was  right,  then  at  first  he  spoke  without 
knowledge    of  the    Divine    will.^     Similarly    Isaiah 

*  Jer.  xlii.  7.  ^2  Sam.  vii.  i  ff. 

^  No  essential  change  is  required  in  the  interpretation  above  if  one 
holds  with  Budde  that  ver.  13  is  a  Deuteronomic  interpolation,  and 
that  the  original  passage  knows  nothing  of  the  Solomonic  temple 
{Biicher  Samuel,  iti  loc).  Nathan  did  first  counsel  David  to  build  the 
house,  and  then  not  to  do  so,  even  if  he  did  not  predict  Solomon's 
building. 


322  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

went  to  Hezekiah,  lying  apparently  on  his  death-bed, 
and  advised  him  to  set  his  house  in  order  for  he 
would  surely  die ;  further,  he  prefaced  his  message 
with  the  formula,  "  Thus  saith  Jahveh."^  But  before 
the  harbinger  of  evil  had  reached  the  middle  of  the 
palace  court  ^  he  was  commanded  to  go  back  and  bid 
the  king  good  cheer,  for  he  would  yet  live  fifteen 
years.^  It  is  true  that  it  might  be  said  that  it  was 
first  God's  intention  that  the  king  should  die,  and 
then  that  the  intention  was  changed  by  reason  of 
Hezekiah's  prayer.  To  say  nothing  of  the  doubtful- 
ness of  such  an  interpretation,  it  would  remain  the 
fact  that  Isaiah  was  not  possessed  of  the  know- 
ledge which  belonged  to  God.  For  God  must  have 
known  the  whole  story,  whatever  the  outcome  was 
to  be. 

Elisha  was  puzzled  to  find  that  a  calamity  had 
befallen  the  Shunamite  whose  hospitality  he  had 
enjoyed,  and  "  Jahveh  had  hid  it  from  him,  and  had 
not  informed  him."  *  He  felt  that  there  was  some- 
thing strange  that  the  child  miraculously  born  to  the 
woman  should  have  died  without  his  knowledge.  It 
seemed  wrong  that  the  woman  should  come  to  him 
in   distress  without   his   knowing   the  cause  of  her 

^  2  Kings  XX.  i.  =Isa.  xxxviii.  i. 

2  The  English  versions  follow  written  text  and  read  "city"  instead 
of  "court"  ;  the  qeri,  or  emended  text,  which  I  have  followed,  seems 
to  be  right  here  (see  Kittel,  Konigsbiicher,  in  loc).  Isaiah  had  not  got 
away  from  the  palace  before  the  new  message  was  given  to  him. 

•^  2  Kings  XX.  4  ff.  The  parallel  in  Isaiah  xxxviii.  omits  the  note  of 
time.  The  story  seemingly  was  already  a  puzzle  to  the  Chronicler ;  for 
he  mentions  the  sickness  and  recovery  of  the  king,  but  is  silent  about 
the  contradictory  messages  of  the  prophet. 

■*  2  Kings  iv.  27. 


THE   PROPHET'S   VISION  323 

sorrow.  The  vision  of  the  prophet  was  not  broad 
enough  to  comprehend  all  the  events  which  happened 
even  in  the  narrow  range  of  his  own  life. 

Again  the  prophet  shows  his  limitations  in  his 
attempt  to  restore  the  child.  God  must  be  the  source 
of  the  rekindled  life,  and  God  is  not  dependent  upon 
any  particular  means.  It  would  suffice,  then,  to  ac- 
complish the  resurrection  by  a  simple  process ;  and 
so  Gehazi  is  sent  with  EHsha's  staff  and  directed  to 
lay  it  upon  the  face  of  the  child.  The  servant  did 
as  he  was  bid  ;  but  there  was  neither  voice  nor  hear- 
ing, and  the  discomfited  agent  had  to  go  back  and 
report,  "  The  child  is  not  awaked." 

The  mother,  with  the  truer  womanly  instinct,  had 
little  faith  in  the  staff.  She  refused  to  leave  the 
seer's  abode  unless  he  accompanied  her,  and  in 
response  to  her  importunity  Elisha  started  to  Shunem 
to  learn  from  Gehazi  on  the  way  how  needful  indeed 
was  his  presence  there.  When  he  went  to  the 
chamber,  not  with  a  talisman,  but  with  personal 
ministration,  then  "the  flesh  of  the  child  waxed  warm," 
and  with  renewed  efforts,  the  eyes  were  opened,  and 
the  living  child  was  restored  to  his  mother. 

The  word  of  a  prophet,  though  uncontradicted  by 
him,  was  not  necessarily  final  for  all  time.  The  vision 
might  stand  for  the  moment,  and  yet  not  reach  the 
high  plane  of  eternal  truth.  Jehu  was  not  only 
anointed  by  a  prophet,  acting  under  advice  from 
Elisha,  but  he  was  commanded  to  slay  every  male 
child  of  the  house  of  Ahab.^  Jahveh  commended 
Jehu,  doubtless  by  the  mouth  of  a  prophet,  for  his 

^  2  Kings  ix.  8. 


324  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

zeal  in  making  a  holocaust  of  the  Baal  worshippers, 
and  for  shedding  the  blood  of  the  royal  house.^  But 
Hosea's  vision  came  nearer  to  the  truth  of  God 
than  Elisha's,  and  one  of  his  sharpest  censures  is 
directed  against  the  bloodshed  of  the  house  of  Jehu.- 
God  inspired  Elisha,  and  the  same  God  inspired 
Hosea — at  least,  so  I  think — but  they  were  not  mere 
flutes,  helpless  except  as  touched  by  the  hand  that 
plays  them.  Hosea  lived  in  a  later  day,  and  was 
possessed  of  finer  instincts  than  the  plowman,  and 
so  his  vision  comprehended  a  truth  to  which  his  less 
enlightened  brother  was  blind. 

The  perplexity  of  St.  Peter  at  the  vision  which  he 
saw  upon  the  housetop  at  Joppa^  is  illuminative  of 
the  way  in  which  God  deals  with  all  His  prophets. 
A  suggestion  is  given  which  must  be  interpreted  and 
applied.  An  idea  is  breathed  into  the  mind  of  the 
seer,  but  the  idea  is  a  seed  which  must  be  converted 
into  fruit,  and  the  husbandman  will  by  no  means  be 
relieved  of  his  share  in  that  labour.  Habakkuk  was 
sorely  puzzled  by  the  facts  which  he  saw — the  great 
heathen  power  of  Babylon  inflicting  ruin  on  a  nation 
which,  with  all  its  shortcomings,  was  holier  than  its 
assailants.  His  own  efforts  must  help  him  to  resolve 
his  doubts. 

We  ought  not  to  think  it  strange  that  there  was  a 
limitation  set  to  the  prophet's  vision  ;  that  he  was 
not  able  to  forecast  the  future  with  detailed  accuracy,* 

^  2  Kings  X.  30.  '^  Hosea  i.  4.  ^  Acts  x. 

*  The  non-fulfilment  of  many  prophetic  predictions  is  a  certain  fact 
in  the  phenomena  of  prophecy  ;  but  the  subject  is  too  large  to  be 
adequately  treated  here.     See,  however,  p.  121  ff. 


THE  PROPHET'S   VISION  325 

nor  even  to  grasp  always  the  range  of  events  of  his 
own  time.  For  Jesus  taught  a  doctrine  which  sweeps 
aside  all  the  ideas  which  have  so  tenaciously  clung 
about  the  overloaded  doctrine  of  inspiration.  Jesus 
declared  that  the  humble  fisher-folk  of  the  Sea  of 
Galilee  had  a  broader  vision  of  heavenly  things  than 
the  greatest  prophet  of  Hebrew  history.  "  Many 
prophets  and  righteous  men  desired  to  see  the  things 
which  ye  see,  and  saw  them  not ;  and  to  hear  the 
things  which  ye  hear,  and  heard  them  not."^  The 
prophets  of  Israel  were  greater  men  than  the  disciples 
of  Jesus ;  but  the  vision  of  Jesus  was  infinitely 
truer  than  that  of  the  seers,  and  the  humble  disciples 
were  given  some  of  the  results  of  their  Master's 
insight. 

The  errant  vision  of  the  seers  unhappily  extended 
at  times  even  to  the  moral  sphere.  Moses  is  reputed 
to  be  the  author  of  the  Decalogue ;  but  he  who 
engraved  upon  the  stone  the  words,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
steal,"  counselled  his  people  to  plunder  the  Egyptians 
on  the  eve  of  their  departure  from  the  land  of 
bondage.  The  sacred  writer  says  that  this  counsel 
was  given  by  Moses  at  the  express  command  of 
God,-  and  that  Jahveh  gave  them  favour  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Egyptians  so  as  to  further  their  evil  project.^ 

Samuel  was  too  much  afraid  of  Saul  openly  to 
anoint  David  as  his  rival  claimant  to  the  throne. 
He  had  recourse  to  a  subterfuge.  He  pretended  that 
he  had  come  to  Bethlehem  merely  to  offer  a  sacrifice. 
Under  cover  of  that  sacrifice  he  secretly  anointed  the 

^  Matt.  xiii.  17.  2  Exod.  xi.  I  f. 

'  Exod.  xii.  36. 


326  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

youthful  shepherd  as  the  king  of  all  Israel.^  One 
may  well  say  that  that  is  no  great  evil,  and  indeed  it 
would  not  be  a  very  great  sin  for  even  such  a  man  as 
Samuel  to  dissemble  in  order  to  save  his  life.  But 
we  are  told  that  Samuel's  deception  was  due  to  the 
command  of  God,  and  that  brings  the  matter  sharply 
home  as  serious.  What  we  might  easily  understand 
and  extenuate  in  Samuel,  we  can  neither  understand 
nor  extenuate  in  God.  It  is  one  of  the  gifts  of 
modern  study  that  we  can  grasp  the  true  situation. 
The  errant  vision  of  the  seer  explains  the  whole 
problem.  That  Samuel  mistook  his  guidance,  that 
he  attributed  to  God  a  plan  devised  in  his  own  mind, 
shows  not  only  the  solution  of  a  moral  difficulty  in 
the  Bible,  but  also  reveals  the  nature  of  the  prophet's 
vision.  It  is  not  always  easy  to  be  sure  whether  one 
is  seeing  with  one's  own  eyes  or  another's.  The 
prophets  were  not  relieved  of  the  perplexities  and 
dangers  of  life  by  virtue  of  their  relation  to  God. 

It  is  a  strange  thing  that  the  gravest  of  such 
errant  visions  is  chargeable  to  Jeremiah.  The  poor 
persecuted  prophet  had  long  been  a  prisoner ;  Ebed- 
melech,  the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  had  just  rescued  him 
from  the  miry  pit.  He  was  brought  to  the  king  for 
consultation,  and  was  given  a  glimpse  of  the  king's 
intentions,  which  Zedekiah  did  not  care  to  have 
known  by  his  court.  He  therefore  charged  the 
prophet  not  to  disclose  the  interview,  but,  if  ques- 
tioned, to  pretend  that  he  had  only  petitioned  the 
king  not  to  send  him  back  to  the  dungeon,  where  he 
had  nearly  died.      Jeremiah  was  promptly  interro- 

^  I  Sam.  xvi. 


THE   PROPHET'S   VISION  327 

gated  by  the  princes,  who  were  evidently  suspicious 
of  the  king's  loyalty  to  the  fast-sinking  ship,  and  "  he 
told  them  according  to  all  those  words  that  the  king 
had  commanded " ;  and  the  historian,  who  was 
probably  Baruch,  adds  with  an  ill-concealed  glee,  "  So 
they  left  off  speaking  with  him  ;  for  the  matter  was 
not  perceived."^  It  is  true  that  there  is  this  relief  in 
this  passage :  we  are  not  told  that  Jeremiah's  action 
was  counselled  or  approved  of  God.  Probably 
Baruch  would  not  have  ventured  so  far  as  that. 

The  prophets  betray  the  limitations  of  their  visions 
again  in  the  personal  imprecations  which  now  and 
again  disfigure  the  otherwise  fair  pages  of  their 
writings.  It  seems  to  be  the  natural  law  that  he 
who  suffered  most  was  most  bitter  in  his  maledic- 
tions. Amos  predicted  a  dark  future  for  the  priest 
who  essayed  to  stay  the  voice  of  Jahveh's  seer ;  his 
wife  would  be  a  harlot,  his  children  fall  by  the  sword, 
his  land  be  confiscated,  and  he  himself  die  in  a  foreign 
land. 2  Jeremiah  was  far  from  gentle  in  his  wishes 
for  those  who  conspired  against  him  and  his  mission : 
"  Deliver  up  their  children  to  the  famine,  and  give 
them  over  to  the  power  of  the  sword  :  and  let  their 
wives  become  childless,  and  widows  ;  let  their  men  be 
slain  of  death,  and  their  young  men  smitten  of  the 
sword  in  battle."^  On  other  occasions,  too,  his  fierce 
wrath  broke  loose  against  his  oppressors. 

It  is  not  difficult  for  us,  who  are  men  of  like 
passions  with  the  prophets,  to  understand  such 
utterances  ;  nor  is  it  difficult  for  us  to  realise  that 

^  Jer,  xxxviii.  14-28,  "^  Amos  vii.  17. 

"*  Jer.  xviii.  21. 


328  THE   HEBREW    PROPHET 

they  are  hopelessly  inconsistent  with  the  teaching, 
"  Love  your  enemies,  and  pray  for  them  that  perse- 
cute you."  Amos  and  Jeremiah  had  many  true 
visions,  but  their  imprecations  were  never  written  in 
their  hearts  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

A  frank  treatment  of  the  Hebrew  prophet  de- 
mands that  such  limitations  should  be  candidly 
stated.  But  we  should  be  careful  not  to  exaggerate 
the  shortcomings  of  the  prophets.  The  real  cause  for 
wonder  is  not  that  there  are  such  shortcomings,  but 
that  they  are  so  few.  The  general  character  of  the 
visions  seen  of  the  prophets  is  the  highest  attestation 
that  they  were  men  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  character  of  the  men  agreed  with  the  character 
of  their  visions.  The  prophets  stood  out  of  the  mass 
of  men  not  only  by  their  lips,  but  also  by  their  lives. 
Isaiah  saw  that  clean  lips  were  a  prerequisite  to  in- 
spired utterance.^  The  seer  can  never  be  a  rogue. 
In  the  long  run  no  man  can  have  high  visions  and 
lead  a  low  life.  There  have  been  cases  when  men 
came  near  to  it,  but  there  is  always  a  lack  somewhere. 
Our  Lord  stated  the  eternally  binding  conditions  in 
the  beatitudes :  "  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for 
they  shall  see  God."  God  is  not  visible  on  any  other 
terms  whatsoever. 

Micah  knew  that  he  was  full  of  power  by  the 
Spirit  of  Jahveh,  but  that  the  herd  of  seers  were  shut 
in  darkness  so  that  they  had  no  vision.  The  evil 
character  of  their  lives  explained  their  inability  to 
know  what  God's  high  purposes  were.  So  Jeremiah, 
in  denouncing  the  bodies  of  prophets,  always  connects 

^  See  Isa.  vi.  5  ff. 


THE   PROPHET'S   VISION  329 

their  false  visions  with  their  base  lives.  Origen  long 
ago  saw  the  truth  of  the  matter,  in  this  and  other 
points  ;  and  I  quote  this  brief  extract :  "  In  regard  to 
the  prophets  among  the  Jews,  some  of  them  were 
wise  even  before  they  became  divinely  inspired  pro- 
phets, while  others  became  wise  by  the  illumination 
which  their  minds  received  when  divinely  inspired. 
They  were  selected  by  Divine  Providence  to  receive 
the  Divine  Spirit,  and  to  be  the  depositories  of  His 
holy  oracles,  on  the  ground  of  their  leading  a  life  of 
almost  unapproachable  excellence,  intrepid,  noble, 
unmoved  by  danger  or  death.  For  reason  teaches 
that  such  ought  to  be  the  character  of  the  prophets 
of  the  Most  High";^  and  we  may  add,  the  record 
shows  that  such  was  their  character. 

Our  Lord  stated  the  same  truth  in  another  way 
when  He  gave  warning  against  false  prophets :  "  By 
their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  And  the  fruit  which 
Jesus  meant  was  not  only  of  the  lips,  but  of  the  life 
as  well.  That  our  Lord  meant  moral  fruits  as  well  as 
eloquence  or  orthodoxy  is  clearly  shown  by  another 
saying  in  the  same  passage ;  "  Not  every  one  that 
saith  unto  Me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  My 
Father  which  is  in  heaven." ^  To  call  Jesus  "  Lord  " 
is  indeed  well ;  but  alone  it  does  not  suffice.  Many 
may  do  that,  and  be  barred  from  the  Kingdom,  a  fate 
which  will  never  befall  a  simple  soul  who  does  the 
will  of  God. 

The  Hebrew  prophet  was  made  what  he  was  by 
Divine  inspiration  and  by  moral  character.     Another 

^  Against  Celsus,  chap.  vii.  ^  Matt  vii.  21. 


330  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

factor  contributed  a  share  to  his  equipment.  The 
greatest  of  all  was  the  best  educated,  for  example. 
But  inspiration  and  character  are  the  two  essential 
requirements. 

Prophets  are  needed  in  every  age.  The  model 
for  all  modern  seers  is  found  in  the  Bible.  Then  let 
him  who  aspires  to  visions  of  God  not  forget  the 
fundamental  condition,  purity  of  heart.  The  more 
perfect  a  man's  mental  fitness,  the  higher  may  be 
his  visions  ;  but  no  matter  what  his  other  acquire- 
ments are,  his  visions  of  God  will  be  dependent  upon 
the  cleanness  of  his  life. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES 


(i)  Ram  AH  (p.  5) 

SAUL'S  servant  said,  "  There  is  a  man  of  God  in 
this  city,"^  but  the  name  of  the  city  is  not  mentioned 
here  or  elsewhere  in  the  narrative.  It  is  clear,  however,  that 
the  writer  meant  the  city  where  Samuel  resided  permanently, 
for  on  entering  the  city  Saul  asks  the  to  him  unknown  Samuel, 
"Tell  me  I  pray  where  the  seer's  house  is."^ 

The  later  narrative  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  always  names 
Ramah  as  Samuel's  residence  ;  it  was,  in  fact,  his  birthplace, 
residence,  and  burial-place.'  It  is  plain  that  Ramathaim- 
zophim*  is  an  error,  and  that  we  should  probably  read,  "a  man 
of  the  Ramathites,  a  Zuphite."^ 

On  the  authority  of  this  later  narrative  nearly  all  Biblical 
scholars  have  identified  the  unnamed  city  of  ix.  6  with  Ramah. 
Budde,  however,  contends  that  if  the  author  had  known  the 
name  of  the  city  he  would  have  given  it,  and  that  the  situation 
of  Ramah  makes  it  inadmissible  here.®  The  author  may  not 
have  known  the  name  of  Samuel's  city,  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  even  a  later  writer  may  not  have  been  better  informed.  As 
to  the  geographical  situation,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the 
journey  of  Saul  and  his  servant''  is  not  very  clear  to  us. 

The  stages  of  the  journey  are  given  as  Mt.  Ephraim,  Shali- 
shah,  Shaalim,  land  of  the  Benjamites,  land  of  Zuph.  At  the 
last-named  place  Saul  resolved  to  turn  back,  lest  his  father 

^  I  Sam.  ix.  6.  ^  lb.  v.  i8. 

'  I  Sam.  i.  19;  ii.  ii;  vii.  17;  viii.  4;  xx.  34;  xvi.  13;  xix.  l8ff.; 
XXV.  I  ;  xxviii.  3. 

♦  I  Sam.  i.  I.  5  Budde,  H.  P.  Smith. 

^  Die  Biicher  Samttel,  in  loc.        '  I  Sam.  ix.  4  f. 


332  THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 

should  worry  about  the  searchers  more  than  the  lost.  It  is 
natural,  therefore,  that  Zuph  should  mark  the  furthest  point  on 
the  journey.  If  that  is  the  case,  then  the  land  of  Benjamin 
could  not  be  the  fourth  stage  in  their  course,  but  must  have 
been  the  first,  for  Benjamin  was  their  home  and  starting-point. 
Moreover,  Saul  would  scarcely  have  said,  "  Let  us  go  back, '  if 
they  were  already  returned  to  the  vicinity  of  his  home.  Efforts 
have  been  made  to  locate  Shalishah  and  Shaalim,  but  so  far  no 
convincing  suggestion  has  appeared.  The  fact  seems  to  be 
that  the  text  is  in  disorder,  Benjamin  and  Ephraim  having  been 
transposed.  Changing  the  verbs  to  the  plural,  as  the  sense 
requires,  and  as  the  LXX.  reads,  we  then  get  the  following : 
"  And  they  went  through  the  land  of  Benjamin,  and  did  not 
find  them ;  and  they  went  through  the  land  of  Shalishah,  and  did 
not  find  them  ;  and  they  went  through  the  land  of  Shaalim,  and 
they  were  not  there  ;  and  they  went  through  Mt.  Ephraim  : 
they  had  come  into  the  land  of  Zuph,  and  Saul  said  to  his 
servant,  who  was  with  him,  Come,  let  us  go  back."  This  makes 
the  journey  intelligible  as  far  as  we  know  it,  and  brings  the 
searchers  to  a  halt  in  the  country  of  Samuel,  for  Zuph  was  in 
Mt.  Ephraim,  or  on  its  borders.  Cheyne's  proposal  to  read 
Mizpah  instead  of  Zuph^  gives  us  a  city  with  which  Samuel 
was  intimately  associated,  but  the  change  is  arbitrary  and  un- 
necessary. 

The  emendation  proposed  has  this  further  support :  the 
phrase,  "they  did  not  find  them"  (or  an  equivalent),  occurs  after 
each  place-name  until  we  come  to  Mt.  Ephraim  and  Zuph, 
where  it  is  lacking.  The  author  here  is  concerned  with  the 
return  of  the  searchers,  and  evidently  did  not  regard  Mt. 
Ephraim  and  Zuph  as  successive  stages,  but  as  essentially 
identical.  Ramah,  too,  was  in  the  hill  country  of  Ephraim,  and 
is  very  likely  the  place  where  Saul  found  Samuel. 

(2)  Amos  iii.  7  (p.  10) 
This  passage  has  long  been  regarded  as  the  classic  instance 
of  the  prophet's  foreknowledge.    Steiner  long  ago  said,  "  These 

1  "  Zuph,"  ^Mfj/c.  Bibl. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES  333 

words  contain  the  justification  of  prophecy  in  general  and  of 
Amos  in  particular."  It  has  seemed  to  be  significant  that 
this  view  of  prophecy  should  be  found  in  the  first  literary 
prophet. 

In  recent  days,  however,  the  authenticity  of  the  passage  has 
been  seriously  questioned.  All  the  arguments  are  summed  up 
by  Marti :  (i)  It  intolerably  disturbs  the  connexion.  (2)  It  is 
of  a  diflferent  structure  from  4-6,  8.  (3)  Its  theological  character 
marks  it  as  secondary.  (4)  HID  "secret,"  except  in  Genesis 
xli.  6,  is  first  found  in  Jeremiah,  and  ^"1D  rhi  (to  reveal  a  secret) 
is  found  elsewhere  only  in  Proverbs.  (5)  "  His  servants  the  pro- 
phets" is  a  favourite  expression  of  the  Deuteronomist.  Marti 
quotes  Lohr  and  Baumann  in  support  of  his  theory  that  it  is  a 
gloss  added  long  after  Amos.* 

It  must  be  frankly  admitted  that  most  of  Marti's  premises  are 
sound,  but  still  I  cannot  accept  his  conclusion.  Every  writer 
inserts  explanatory  clauses  which  necessarily  disturb  the 
sequence  of  thought.  We  know  that  the  idea  that  God  fore- 
warned the  prophets  of  His  intentions  was  common  in 
Jeremiah's  day,  but  it  may  have  been  held  long  before.  The 
whole  Book  of  Amos  is  full  of  the  idea.  He  was  warning 
Samaria  because  God  had  apprised  him  of  impending  disaster: 
why  should  he  not  state  the  doctrine  which  underlies  his 
words  ?  The  favourite  expressions  of  the  Deuteronomist,  or  of 
any  other  writer,  are  not  necessarily  words  coined  by  him. 

The  introductory  "for"  and  the  close  connexion  between 
verses  6  and  8  are  the  real  problems.  Driver  says  of  "for," 
"The  reason,  however,  following  not  in  v.  7,  but  in  v.  8,  to 
which  V.  7  is  subordinate."  ^  Oort  changes  >3  to  HD,^  and 
Oetli  transposes  verses  7  and  8.  Lohr  transposes  and  gives  this 
order,  6^,  6a,  S.*  We  are  somewhat  distrustful  of  such  solutions, 
aiming  to  remove  a  difficulty,  but  not  succeeding  altogether.  The 
words  in  question,  "  The  Lord  Jahveh  will  take  no  action 
except   He  disclose   His   purpose   to   His   prophets,"   do  not 

1  Handbiuh  ztan  A.  T.,  in  loc. ;  cf.  Davidson,  Old  Testatnent 
Prophecy,  pp.  i8,  77,  97  ;  Cornill,  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  35. 

2  Cambridge  Bible,  in  loc.  ^  Theol.  Tigd.  xiv.  135. 
•»  Beihefte  zttr  Z.A.  T.  W.,  iv. 


334  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

explain  why  Amos  prophesies,  that  is  reserved  for  verse  8,  but 
why  the  prophet  knows  what  will  happen.  In  verse  6  Amos  is 
trying  to  make  the  people  see  the  signs  that  something  will 
happen,  not  by  chance,  but  by  Divine  act :  "  Shall  harm  befall 
a  city,  and  Jahveh  not  do  it?"  Verse  7  is  a  comment  on  those 
last  words,  intentionally  suspending  the  thought :  Jahveh  will 
do  something  now,  and  I  know  what  He  will  do,  for  Jahveh 
discloses  His  purpose  to  His  prophets.  What  follows  this 
becomes  clear :  my  knowledge,  and  the  source  of  my  know- 
ledge, constrain  me  to  speak  :  "The  Lord  Jahveh  has  spoken, 
who  can  help  prophesying  ? " 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  altogether  out  of  the 
question  to  change  the  last  word  to  "  trembling,"  as  Well- 
hausen  does,  or,  as  the  latest  suggestion  in  Encyc.  Bibl., 
p.  3870,  to  "  feel  pain  "  (nND*). 


(3)  I  Samuel  ix.  9  (p.  30) 

Thenius^  has  been  followed  by  virtually  all  modern  scholars 
in  pronouncing  this  verse  a  gloss,  and  pointing  out  that  since  it 
explains  the  archaic  word  "seer,"  which  is  first  used  in  verse  1 1,  it 
should  follow  verse  1 1  instead  of  verse  8.  The  editor,  who  intro- 
duced the  gloss,  however,  was  not  so  blind  as  it  might  seem,  for  in 
spite  of  the  explanation  of  "  seer,"  the  natural  place  for  this 
comment  is  where  Saul  and  his  servant  resolved  to  go  up  to  the 
seer,  not  where  they  were  asking  for  his  house. 

The  verse  is  undoubtedly  a  gloss,  but  it  must  be  remembered 
that  a  gloss  may  be  more  valuable  than  an  original  text. 
Cornill  does  not  exaggerate  when  he  calls  this  an  "  invaluable 
explanatory  remark."^  In  the  writer's  time  prophet  was  the 
current  word  for  the  man  of  God,  and  seer  had  passed  out  of 
use ;  but  the  office  was  just  the  same.  In  Samuel's  day 
prophet  means  a  member  of  the  order  described  in  chapter  iv. ; 
the  independent  individual  was  a  seer.  Nowack  says  truly  that 
"originally  ro'eh  and  nabt  had  nothing  to  do  with  each 
other." 

^  Handbuch  zum  A.T.,  in  loc. 
^  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  12. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES  335 

When  did  the  term  prophet  displace  the  term  seer  ? 
Kautzsch  says  that  Amos^  speaks  of  the  nebiHm  in  the  most 
honourable  sense.'^  Amaziah  calls  Amos  a  seer,^  but  apparently 
in  contempt.  Comparing  Amos  iii.  7  and  vii.  14,  where  Amos 
repudiates  any  connexion  with  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  it 
would  seem  as  if  seer  had  become  an  unwelcome  term,  and 
that  prophet  was  already  applied  indifferently  to  the  higher  or 
lower  order,  as  was  customary  in  all  later  times.  The  gloss 
may  therefore  belong  somewhere  near  the  time  of  Amos. 


(4)  Jeremiah  v.  31  (p.  47) 

The  expression  rendered  "the  priests  bear  rule  at  their 
hands,"  is  not  devoid  of  difficulty.  The  LXX.  translators 
were  evidently  puzzled,  but  they  render  iir€Kp6T7](Tav  rais  xe/"^'" 
airrup,  which  Workman  understands  to  mean  "  clap  their 
hands."  Most  scholars  render  essentially  as  I  have  ;  Graf, 
"  hand  in  hand  with  them,"  or,  "  under  their  discretion "  : 
Orelli,  "on  their  side  as  their  agents  "  :  Hitzig,  "  come  forward 
according  to  their  direction."  Giesebrecht  translates,  "the 
priests  rule  according  to  their  own  pleasure,"  and  refers  to 
Pashhur's  persecution  of  Jeremiah.  Duhm  departs  furthest 
from  the  general  view,  rendering,  "  the  priests  put  (money)  into 
their  pockets,"  following  a  rare  meaning  of  rm  "  scrape  "  ;  so 
Ges-Buhl. 

Graf  refers  to  Jeremiah  xxix.  24  fif.,  where  we  read  that 
Shemaiah  a  prophet  sends  a  letter  from  Babylon  to  Zephaniah 
saying  that  Jahveh  had  made  him  a  priest  instead  of  Jehoiada. 
It  may  be  doubtful  whether  the  prophet  is  declaring  a  fact,  or 
making  an  appointment.  If  the  latter,  it  would  support  the 
interpretation  of  the  passage  which  I  have  given.  It  must  not 
be  forgotten  either  that  the  verse  rendered  as  literally  as  pos- 
sible is,  "  the  priests  bear  rule  at  their  hands." 

^  See  iii.  7.  ^  Hastings'  Bj6,  Diet.,  ext.  vol.,  p.  672. 


336  THE    HEBREW    PROPHET 


(5)  Jezebel's  Persecution  (p.  56) 

H.  P.  Smith  holds  that  among  the  exaggerations  of  the 
legendary  accretions  in  the  life  of  Elijah  we  may  count  the 
assertion  that  Jezebel  was  an  active  persecutor  of  the  religion 
of  Jahveh.  He  says  that  Ahab  had  four  hundred  court  pro- 
phets, whom  even  Jehoshaphat  did  not  suspect ;  that  Micaiah 
does  not  doubt  their  inspiration  from  Jahveh  ;  and  that  Ahab 
gave  his  children  names  compounded  with  Jahveh.^ 

That  Elijah  in  his  despair  exaggerated  the  extent  of  the  eviP 
is  natural  under  the  circumstances.  In  fact,  verse  18  shows  that 
Elijah  soon  reahsed  his  exaggeration.  Jehoshaphat  may  have 
admitted  that  Ahab's  prophets  said,  "thus  saith  Jahveh,"  but 
he  evidently  placed  no  confidence  in  their  oracles.  Moreover, 
Jehoshaphat  asks,  "  is  there  not  here  besides  a  prophet  of 
Jahveh,  that  we  may  inquire  of  him  ?"^  The  question  impHes 
a  distinction  between  Micaiah  and  the  court  prophets.  Later 
in  the  Moabite  campaign,  Jehoshaphat  asks  Jehoram,  "is  there 
not  here  a  prophet  of  Jahveh?"'*  The  king's  emphasis  on 
prophet  of  Jahveh  seems  to  imply  that  there  were  other 
prophets  at  the  Israelite  court. 

Jezebel  may  not  be  quite  so  black  as  she  is  painted,  but  still 
the  persistent  tradition  must  be  given  full  weight.  Kittel  is 
probably  near  the  truth  when  he  suggests  that  the  Elijah  story 
may  originally  have  contained  a  section  giving  a  detailed 
history  of  Jezebel's  persecution.^ 

(6)  Distinguishing  Marks  of  the  Prophet  (p.  72) 

It  is  generally  agreed  that  there  were  two  distinguishing 
marks  of  the  prophet,  the  hair-mantle  and  some  sign  on  the 
forehead.  In  a  note  to  Stade's  edition  of  the  Book  of  Kings,* 
Haupt  suggests  a  third  mark,  for  he  asserts  that  in  order  to 
disguise  himself  the  prophet  must  cover  a  peculiar  tonsure  and 

1  O.T.  Hist.,  188  f.  2  I  Kings  xix.  14. 

^  I  Kings  xxii.  7.  *  2  Kings  iii.  il. 

*  KonigsbiUher,  p.  141  f.  "^  Poly.  Bible. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES  337 

the  mark  between  the  eyes.     We  have  no  evidence  of  such  a 
tonsure  among  the  prophets. 

We  have  given  proof  enough  that  the  mantle  was  a  character- 
istic garment,  i  Kings  xx.  41  is  sufficient  evidence  that  there 
was  some  mark :  "he  quickly  removed  the  bandage  from  over  his 
eyes,  and  the  king  of  Israel  recognised  him  that  he  was  one  of 
the  prophets."  The  removal  of  the  bandage  revealed  a  mark 
which  identified  the  man  with  the  prophets.  A.V.  by  a 
curious  misunderstanding  translates,  "he  hasted,  and  took  the 
ashes  away  from  his  face."  Stade  suggests  that  we  may  dis- 
cover the  survival  of  this  mark  in  Zechariah  xiii.  6 :  "  and  he 
said  unto  him.  What  are  these  wounds  between  thy  hands?" 
But  "  between  thy  hands  "  makes  no  sense.  Lowe  proposed  to 
interpret  "  on  thy  chest,"  but  without  warrant.  Nowack  gives 
up  the  passage,  suggesting  that  the  text  is  corrupt ;  evidently 
he  had  not  seen  Stade's  ingenious  suggestion  to  insert  hv) 
yyv  and  thus  get  "  what  are  these  wounds  (or  marks) 
between  thy  eyes  and  upon  thy  hands?"  This  fits  into  the 
context  admirably  :  the  prophet  in  shame  would  disavow  his 
office,  only  to  be  met  by  the  question,  whence  then  the  pro- 
phetic stigmata  between  the  eyes  and  on  the  hands  ?  This 
proposal  seems  to  have  escaped  G.  A.  Smith  also. 

What  was  the  mark,  and  by  what  means  was  it  covered  up  ? 
Haupt  insists  that  "iBX  rendered  "bandage,"  is  an  Assyrian 
loan-word  meaning  helmet.  The  prophet  put  on  a  helmet, 
which  covered  the  tonsure,  and  the  visor  of  which  would  con- 
ceal the  mark  between  the  eyes.  Jastrow  agrees  that  the 
Assyrian  word  means  helmet  or  headgear,  but  says  the  word 
in  our  text  means  a  sort  of  turban.^  Helmet  is  quite  unsuitable 
to  the  text :  verse  38,  "  he  disguised  himself  with  an  'aphar 
(bandage)  upon  his  eyes,"  does  not  sound  like  putting  a  helmet 
upon  the  head ;  nor  could  we  say  "  he  quickly  removed  the 
helmet  ('aphar)  from  upon  his  eyes."'^  Far  more  probable  is  the 
interpretation  that  it  was  such  a  cloth  as  Orientals  wind  about 
the  head,  and  which  could  easily  be  wound  over  the  eyes  so  as 
to  cover  the  mark.  Cheyne  says  the  sign  was  a  survival  of  the 
tribal  mark  which  placed  the  Kenites  under  the  protection  of 
^  /.A.O.S.,xx.  137,  '^  V.  41. 

z 


338  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

their  god  Jahveh.^  Haupt  asserts  that  the  mark  was  tattooed 
upon  their  forehead.  He  finds  references  to  tattooing  in  Can- 
ticles V.  14.2  It  is  quite  likely  though  that  the  mark  was  made 
by  cutting,  a  very  frequent  practice  among  the  Semites,  and 
so  was  a  scar.  Zechariah  xiii.  6,  as  amended  by  Stade,  would 
support  this  interpretation.  Tattooing  is  forbidden  in  Leviticus 
xix.  28.  This  mark  was  undoubtedly  limited  to  the  sons  of  the 
prophets,  and  the  old  custom  among  them  would  yield  only 
slowly  to  a  law  against  it. 

(7)  Jeremiah  xi.  1-8  (p.  99) 

This  passage  has  been  regarded  as  authentic  by  nearly  all 
scholars,  including  Giesebrecht  and  Cornill.  Duhm  has  raised 
the  question  of  its  originality,  and  Cheyne  naturally  follows  him 
in  doubting  its  genuineness.  They  start  from  the  belief  that 
Jeremiah  took  no  interest  in  the  newly  discovered  Book  of 
Deuteronomy.  Cheyne  refers  to  Jeremiah  viii.  8,  "the  false 
pen  of  the  scribes  has  done  it  falsely,"  as  showing  the  prophet's 
antipathy  to  the  law.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  (i)  the  LXX.  lacks 
verses  7  and  8  of  the  passage,  but  they  are  not  material ;  and 
(2)  that  Huldah  was  consulted  as  to  the  law's  authority ;  but 
that  does  not  prove  that  Jeremiah  was  out  of  sympathy  with 
the  code.  Hofifmann  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  when  Jeremiah 
declared  that  God  had  not  commanded  sacrifices  at  Sinai,^  his 
words  are  unmistakably  aimed  against  the  new  law.* 

On  the  other  hand,  Jeremiah's  book  is  saturated  with 
Deuteronomic  phrases,  a  partial  list  of  which  may  be  found 
in  Driver's  Deuteronomy^  p.  xciii.  Either  Jeremiah  had 
absorbed  the  contents  of  the  new  law,  or  his  book  has  been 
recast  by  a  Deuteronomic  editor,  the  latter  supposition  being 
entirely  unnecessary.  If  we  have  a  reference  to  the  new  law  in 
viii.  8,  on  equally  good  grounds  we  may  find  a  similar  reference, 
with  a  vastly  different  purport,  in  xv.  16:  "Thy  words  were 
found  and  I  did  eat  them  ;  and  they  were  pleasant  to  me,  and 
rejoiced  my  heart." 

1  Encyc.  Bibl. 

^  See  his  Canticles,  and  Am.  Jr.  Sent.  Lang.,  xviii.  231. 

^  vii.  21  f.  *  Religionsgeschichtliche  Vortrdge,  p.  25. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES  339 

(8)  Ancient  Shorthand  Writing  (p.  142) 

It  has  been  claimed  now  and  then  that  shorthand  writing  was 
known  to  many  ancient  peoples,  but  so  far  little  evidence  has 
been  offered  to  support  the  contention.  Now,  however,  M. 
Leon  Goudallier  asserts  that  the  existence  of  shorthand  among 
the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  is  certain.  I  have  not  seen 
M.  Goudallier's  original  article  in  Cosmos,  but  only  extracts 
published  in  the  Literary  Digest.'^  From  these  brief  excerpts 
it  is  difficult  to  verify  the  author's  statements,  or  to  form  a  con- 
clusion as  to  their  value. 

He  claims  to  trace  the  art  clearly  from  Tiro,  a  Roman  slave 
born  in  103  B.C.,  who  became  Cicero's  secretary,  and  who  re- 
ported the  famous  speeches  against  Catiline,  to  which  reference 
was  made  on  page  141  f. 

1  had  supposed  that  stenography  was  distinctly  a  modern  in- 
vention. However,  if  Cicero's  orations,  Paul  of  Samosata's 
debates,  Origen's  and  Chrysostom's  sermons,  Augustine's  dis- 
courses, and  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  of  Carthage, 
were  all  stenographically  reported,  as  M.  Goudallier  claims, 
it  would  still  be  very  unlikely  that  a  reporter  took  down 
the  words  of  Amos  or  Isaiah,  and  it  is  certain  that  Baruch 
did  not  write  Jeremiah's  prophecies  at  the  time  they  were 
delivered. 

(9)  The  Prophets'  Writings  (p.  160) 

A  distinction  must  be  drawn  between  the  prophetic  books  as 
they  have  come  down  to  us,  and  the  original  writings  as  they 
left  the  hand  of  the  author.  It  is  firmly  established  that  the 
prophets  from  Amos  onward  put  their  messages  into  writing 
themselves.  But  it  is  reasonably  sure  that  we  have  no  pro- 
phetic book  in  its  original  form.  The  prophets  wrote,  but  they 
did  not  collect  and  edit ;  that  task  has  been  taken  up  by  others, 
and  was  accomplished  long  after  the  prophets'  days.  The 
editors  were  not  acute  literary  scholars,  whose  aim  was  to  issue 
an  authorised  edition  of  the  authentic  works  of  a  great  prophet. 

^  Feb.  20,  1904. 


340  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

The  editors  were  themselves  deeply  imbued  with  the  prophetic 
spirit ;  but  they  lived  in  a  day  when  deference  was  paid  to  the 
written  rather  than  to  the  spoken  word.  Therefore,  their 
concern  was  to  collect  messages  of  God  which  tended  to  moral 
and  spiritual  rather  than  to  literary  edification.  Consequently 
they  did  not  scruple  to  gather  into  the  one  Book  of  Isaiah  pro- 
phecies from  many  hands,  and  covering  at  least  two  or  three 
hundred  years.  The  contents  of  the  prophecy,  not  its  author- 
ship, determined  its  value  to  them.  The  speech,  not  the 
speaker,  should  likewise  be  the  measure  of  merit  for  us. 


(lo)  Saul's  Rejection  by  Samuel  (p.  169) 

Both  accounts  of  Saul's  rejection^  are  rejected  by  H.  P. 
Smith. '^  The  former  he  calls  "  a  construction  of  religious  bias," 
the  latter  is  passed  by  as  thoroughly  unhistorical,  "  a  free  re- 
construction and  expansion  of  the  former."  In  his  latest 
work^  Budde  agrees  with  Smith,  but  holds  that  there  may  be 
a  fragment  of  history  in  xv.  4-9,  the  story  of  the  Amalekite 
war. 

The  section  in  xiii.  8-15  has  all  the  marks  of  an  interpola- 
tion. As  Nowack  has  pointed  out,  it  interrupts  the  narrative, 
and  it  places  Saul  at  Gilgal,  whereas  verses  2  and  15  indicate 
that  he  was  at  Michmash.  The  narrative  does  not  admit  a 
change  of  position.  The  story  makes  Samuel's  rejection  of 
the  king  an  act  of  injustice,  because  Saul  waited  the  appointed 
time,  and  Saul  did  not  appear.  The  other  story*  does  give  a 
good  reason  for  Saul's  rejection,  according  to  the  ideas  of  the 
times.  Samuel  does  seem  to  have  changed  his  disposition 
towards  the  king,  and  probably  encouraged  David  in  his  efforts 
to  gain  the  throne.  The  prophet  may  have  kept  himself  in  the 
background  more  than  these  later  writers  supposed,  but  his 
hand  may  be  apparent  for  all  that. 

^  I  Sam.  xiii.  8  ff. ,  and  xv. 

'  O.T.  History,  pp.  120,  125  ;  Samuel,  in  loc. 

"  Bikher  Samuel.  ■*  Chap.  xv. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES  341 


(11)  Cheyne's  Jerahmeelite  Theory  (p.  197) 

Cheyne  has  recently  adopted  the  most  revolutionary  theory 
of  the  Northern  Kingdom  which  so  far  has  entered  the  mind  of 
man.  The  whole  life  of  Israel  is  transplanted  to  the  Negeb,  or 
North  Arabia.  Some  of  the  strange  aberrations  of  this  once 
sound  scholar  are  found  in  his  recent  Book  of  Psalms.  The 
application  to  the  prophets  is  developed  in  the  article  "Pro- 
phetic Literature,"  Encyc.  BibL,  and  especially  on  Isaiah  and 
Jeremiah  in  his  Critica  Bibh'ca,  part  i.,  1903. 

There  was  no  prophet  of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  and  there 
is  no  reference  in  prophecy  to  that  land.  Elijah,  Elisha,  Amos, 
Hosea,  Ezekiel,  Joel,  Obadiah,  are  from  the  Negeb ;  and  all  pro- 
phets either  come  from  that  country  or  have  it  constantly  in 
view.  The  centre  of  interest  is  Jerahmeel,  a  place  deserving 
a  fame  hitherto  denied  it ;  for  it  was  the  Mecca  of  all  Hebrew 
prophets,  and  the  subject  of  the  principal  prophecies. 

It  is  true  that  the  prophetic  and  historical  books  give  no 
colour  to  Cheyne's  theory,  but  the  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  Of 
Nahum  i.  i  he  says,  "This  is  one  of  a  group  of  passages^  in 
which  the  names  of  the  North  Arabian  oppressors  of  the  Jews 
are  cleverly  obscured  "  ;  and  again,  with  a  fine  lack  of  a  sense 
of  humour,  "  with  a  North  Arabian  background,  many  parts  of 
Ezekiel  assume  a  different  aspect.  It  is  no  easy  task,  however, 
to  undo  the  skilful  work  of  an  ancient  editor  .  .  .  who  suc- 
ceeded ...  in  well  disguising  the  many  striking  references  to 
Missur,  Jerahmeel,  Geshur,  and  Saphon." 

Cheyne  was  never  turned  from  a  task  because  it  was  not  easy. 
So  he  proceeds  to  undo  the  skilful  work  of  an  ancient  editor 
who,  for  undiscoverable  reasons,  endeavoured  almost  success- 
fully to  ehminate  Jerahmeel  and  the  Negeb  from  the  Old 
Testament.  We  will  cite  a  few  specimens  of  Cheyne's  work  of 
restoration. 

Amos  belonged  to  the  Negeb,  for  the  Bethel  of  vii.  17  is 
a  Bethel  in  the  Negeb  heretofore  unknown.  That  Bethel  was 
in  the  Negeb  is  easily  proved.     In  2  Kings  xxiii.  25,  Jericho, 

^  Isa.  XXXV.  8,  lii.  I  ;  Joel  iii.  4,  17. 


342  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

Bethel,  Mt.  Carmel,  and  Samaria  appear  to  be  near  each  other. 
The  text  should  be  emended  to  read  Rehoboth,  Bethel,  Mt. 
Jerahmeel,  and  Shimron  ;  so  Bethel  is  in  the  Negeb.  Q.E.D. 
Tekoa^  is  a  corruption  of  Jerahmeel,  and  "of  the  herdmen" 
should  be  "  a  native  of  Harim  or  of  Rekem."  D?13  is  a 
clear  corruption  of  Jerahmeel.  "  From  after  the  flock"  should 
be  "  Cusham- Jerahmeel" — the  resemblance  of  the  Hebrew 
is  about  as  close  as  the  English.  Hosea's  wife  was  an  Arabian, 
since  both  Gomer  and  Diblaim  are  corruptions  of  Jerahmeel ; 
therefore  Hosea  dwelt  in  the  Jerahmeelite  Negeb. 

Nahum  has  been  regarded  as  a  simple  problem,  so  far  as 
historical  situation  is  concerned  ;  but  that  seeming  simplicity  is 
due  to  the  skilful  editor.  So  Cheyne  restores  the  original  diffi- 
culties :  "  Underneath  our  present  text  it  is  possible  to  trace  a 
prophecy  which  related,  not  to  Nineveh,  but  to  the  Jerahmeelite 
capital.  The  key  is  i.  i,  where  7rv3  is  miswritten  for 
Jerahmeel."  Joel  is  not  a  real  name,  but  perhaps  a  corruption 
of  Jerahmeel;  Pethuel  (Joel's  father)  =  Bethuel  =  an  inhabitant 
of  Bethel,  and  so  Joel  belongs  to  the  Negeb.  Obadiah  is  not  a 
real  name,  but  a  late  modification  of  an  ethnic,  probably  *3^y, 
the  Arabian. 

Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah  do  not  prophesy  against  the 
Scythians,  for  the  new  light  shows  that  the  invaders  were 
North  Arabians  ;  the  new  light  is  emendation — Geshur  and 
Jerahmeel  instead  of  Assyria  and  Nineveh.  So  the  key  to 
Isaiah  i.  is  Cheyne's  discovery  that  the  supposed  Syro- 
Ephraimitish  war  was  really  an  irruption  of  Jerahmeelites.  It 
may  be  added  that  there  is  very  little  left  of  the  Massoretic  text 
of  Isaiah  after  Cheyne  has  emended  to  his  taste.^ 

Isaiah  xl.-lv.  was  composed  in  North  Arabia.  Ezekiel  also 
suffered  imprisonment  and  prophesied  in  the  same  country. 
The  river  Chebar^  should  be  the  river  of  Jerahmeel,  and  Tel- 
abib  should  be  Tel-arab,  mound  of  Arabia,  or  Tel-Jerahmeel. 
The  strongest  evidence,  however,  he  says,  is  in  chapter  38  f., 
where  Gog  and  Magog  should  be  everywhere  Jerahmeel. 

It  is  needless  to  follow  this  theory  any  further.  Because  of 
Cheyne's  great  name,  this  absurd  fancy  is  likely  to  get  a  hearing 

1  i.  I.  -  See  his  Crit.  Bibl.  '  q^  ^   257. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES  343 

which  it  ill  deserves.  There  is  not  a  particle  of  legitimate 
evidence  advanced  in  its  favour.  By  the  same  method  one 
could  prove  that  the  home  of  prophecy  was  China  or  England, 
since  all  that  is  needed  is  to  change  the  names  and  words  in  the 
text  to  suit  the  occasion.  Less  attention  would  be  given  here 
to  this  imaginative  extravagance,  were  it  not  that  Cheyne 
threatens  us  with  fresh  deluges  of  this  sort  of  criticism.^  Such 
sad  mutilations  of  the  Hebrew  text  and  such  perversions  of 
Hebrew  history  do  serious  harm  to  the  interests  of  a  rational 
and  sound  criticism.  Textual  and  historical  criticism  are  the 
necessary  foundations  of  any  valid  Biblical  study,  but  an  attempt 
to  rewrite  Hebrew  history  from  pure  imagination  is  objection- 
able in  principle  and  barren  in  result. 

(12)  St.  Luke  xiii.  33  (p.  292) 

Our  Lord's  meaning  is  not  that  some  fate  is  drawing  Him  to 
Jerusalem,  but  that  a  prophet  could  only  die  at  the  hands  of  the 
Church.  The  peril  to  the  outspoken  man  of  God,  in  the  olden 
days,  came  often  from  the  State ;  for  the  State  and  Church 
were  closely  identified.  When  the  State  became  independent 
it  was  no  longer  a  menace  to  free  religious  speech.  In  the  case 
of  our  Lord  it  is  significant  that  the  one  hand  stretched  out 
to  stay  the  mad  passions  of  the  frantic  crowd  stirred  up  by  the 
chief  officers  of  the  Jewish  Church  was  that  of  the  Roman 
governor.  Jerusalem,  which  should  have  been  the  centre,  not 
only  of  religious  life,  but  also  of  religious  liberty,  was  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  centre  of  religious  persecution,  and  the 
principal  place  of  martyrdom. 

(13)  "MALACHi"(p.  313) 

It  has  long  been  surmised  that  Malachi  is  not  a  proper 
name,  and  that  we  do  not  know  the  name  of  the  prophet  to 
whom  this  book  is  due.  Cheyne  holds  that  Joel  and  Obadiah 
likewise  are  not  the  names  of  prophets,  since  Joel  may  be  an 
error  for  Jerahmeel  and  Obadiah  for  Arabian.-     Cheyne  further 

^  See  Crit.  Bibl.,  introd.  -  See  Note  (ii). 


344  THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 

suggests  that  Malachi  is  a  corruption  for  Michael,  the  latter 
not  being  the  name  of  the  prophet,  but  the  general  term  for 
any  angel  messenger. 

"Malachi"  is  apparently  taken  into  the  heading  from  iii.  i, 
where  it  must  be  rendered  "my  messenger."  On  account  of 
the  similarity  of  language  Nowack  thinks  that  the  heading 
to  Malachi  ^  is  from  the  same  hand  as  the  headings  in 
Zechariah  ix.  i  and  xii.  i,  all  three  beginning  with  the  peculiar 
phrase,  "the  oracle  of  the  word  of  Jahveh  unto  Israel"  ("unto 
Israel  "is  lacking  from  our  present  text  in  ix.  i).  The  LXX. 
and  the  Targums  did  not  read  "  Malachi "  as  a  proper  name, 
the  former  rendering  077^01;  avroO.  The  editor  did  mean 
Malachi  as  a  proper  name,  however,  for  rendering  "my 
messenger"  will  not  make  good  sense  in  the  heading.  The 
Greek  translators  saw  the  difficulty  and  obviated  by  reading 
"his  messenger." 


(14)  Meaning  of  n^U  (p.  217). 

It  may  be  safely  asserted  that  while  apparently  every  pos- 
sibility has  been  proposed,  Biblical  scholars  are  still  at  sea  as 
to  the  root  meaning.  Most  writers  connect  with  Assyrian 
nadu,  to  call  or  name.  Nebo  (or  Assyrian  Nabu),  whose  name 
is  essentially  the  same  word  as  nadP,  is  sometimes  called  a 
prophet  among  the  gods.^  Hoffmann  proposed  the  meaning, 
"one  who  utters  his  words  in  a  loud  and  violent  manner  with 
deep  inhalations."^  He  connects  idea  with  the  drivel  sympto- 
matic of  an  epileptic  fit.  Cheyne  thinks  that  the  meaning 
"  speaker"  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  earliest  accounts  of  the 
nebiHm,  and  suggests  that  the  word  is  another  form  of  VII 
to  effervesce  or  gush.*  Bewer  connected  with  an  Assyrian 
K33  to  tear  away  violently,  therefore  originally  the  prophet 
was  one  carried  away  by  a  supernatural  power.     In  Israel,  he 

1  i.  I. 

^  See  Jastrow,  Relig.  of  Baby  I.  and  Assyr.  p.  1 30. 

3  Z.A.T.  W^,,  3,  88  ff;  so  Kautzsch,  Hastings'  Bib.  Did.,  ext.  vol., 

*  Similarly,  Davidson,  Hastings'  Bib.  Diet.,  iv.  p.  108. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES  345 

says,  an  insane  man  was  believed  to  be  possessed  of  super- 
natural powers.^  David's  expulsion  from  Achish"  and  the 
demoniacal  possession  in  the  New  Testament,  do  not  support 
his  view. 

Cornill  discusses  the  word  at  length  in  his  Prophets  of  Israel? 
He  says  the  word  is  not  originally  Hebrew,  and  we  must  there- 
fore go  to  the  cognates.  He  dismisses  the  Assyrian  equivalent 
as  lacking  the  essential  point,  which  he  finds  in  the  Arabic, 
where  we  get  the  sense  "announcing"  or  "proclaiming."  His 
example,  Aaron  as  the  prophet  of  Moses,*  does  not  seem  to  me 
a  good  instance  of  the  primitive  use,  nor  is  there  sufficient 
basis  in  his  derivation  for  his  conclusion  that  Arabia  is  the 
ancient  home  of  Hebrew  prophecy. 

The  oldest  use  of  the  word  is  in  i  Samuel  x.  $  ff.,  where 
"prophesying"  certainly  is  applied  to  the  excited  singing  and 
dancing  to  the  accompaniment  of  instrumental  music.  Saul 
quickly  succumbed  to  this  influence,  and,  if  we  may  in  a 
measure  trust  the  later  account,^  which  is  often  regarded  as  a 
later  version  of  the  old  story  in  chapter  x.,  anyone  who  came 
under  the  spell  was  likely  to  catch  the  contagion. 

'  Am.  Jr.  Sem.  Lang.,  xviii.  120.      '^  i  Sam.  xxi.  10  ff. 

'  p.  8  ff.  *  Exod.  iv.  10  f.  ;  vii.  I. 

'  xix.  18  ff. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


Abraham,  9 

Ahab,  II,  52,  106,  178 fif. 

Ahaz,  115,  214 

Ahijah,  7,  173 

Ahikam,  245 

Amaziah,  57,  77,  147,  176 

Amos,  57 

,,      and  the  Church,  279  ff. 

,,  ,,       State,  198  ff. 

Azariah,  176 

Balaam,  14,  17,  23 

Barton,  34 

Baruch,  143 

Briggs,  123 

Budde,  35,  54 ff.,  56,  169,  321 

Chebar,  257 

,,       addn.  note  (11),  341 
Cheyne,  98 

,,        theory  of  prophecy,  addn. 
note  (II),  341 
Chronicler,  138 

David,  170 

,,      house  of,  204 
Davidson,  104 
Deborah,  34 

,,        song  of,  166 
Divination,  162 
Dreams,  20 
Duhm,  155,  241,  248,  298,  302 

Ecstatic  state,  23 

Eglon,  165 

Elijah,  113,  177,  178 

Elisha,  15,  24,  65,  186,  322  f. 


Ezekiel,  153,  320 
, ,       call  of,  99  f. 
, ,       and  the  Church,  304  ff. 
„  ,,       State,  257  ff. 

False  prophets,  58,  302 
Fulfilment  of  prophecy,  I2I 

Gemariah,  246 
Gomer,  86 

Habakkuk,  159 
Haggai,  149,  310 
Hananiah,  58,  107,  133,  301 
Hastings'  Bible   Dictionary,  69, 

210,  227,  230 
Hezekiah,  116,226,322 
Hezekiah's  accession,  218 

„  reformation,  219 

Hilprecht,  164,  257 
Hosea,  call  of,  85  ff. 
Huldah,  240 

Inspiration  of  silence,  319 

Isaiah,  156 

,,      call  of,  91  ff. 

,,      and  the  Church,  290 

,,  ,,      State,  212  ff. 

Jastrow,  70 
Jehoiachin,  243 
Jehoshaphat,  II,  52 
Jehu,  183,  190,  203,  323 
Jerahmeel,  addn.  note(ll),  341 
Jeremiah,  61,  326 

„        call  of,  95  ff. 

, ,        and  the  Church,  293  ff. 
,,      State,  239  ff. 


346 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS 


347 


Jeroboam,  6,  276 

Jeroboam  II.,  191,  197 

Jezebel,  179 

,,       persecution  of,  55 
,,      addn.  note  (5),  336 

Joash,  176,  190 

Joel,  13,  314 

Jonah,  son  of  Amittai,  191 

Josephus,  54 

Joshua,  3 1 1  f. 

Josiah's  reformation,  240 

Judah,  206 

Kittel,  53,  72,  174,  232,  240 
Kraetzschmar,  49  f.,  69,  71,  76 

Malachi,  149.  3I3 

"Malachi."    Cf.  Joel,  addn.  note 

(13).  343 
Manasseh,  239 
Merodach-baladan,  223 
Micah,  book  of,  210 

,,      and  the  State,  210  ff. 
Micaiah,  52,  106,  185,  282,  318 
Moabite  Stone,  186 
Moses,  24,  28,  no 
Musri,  223 

Naaman,  65 
Nabi',  317 
, ,     meaning  of,  addn.  note  ( 1 4), 

344 
Naboth,  183 

Nathan,  170,  172,  193,  32 1 
Natural  and  supernatural,  3 
Nehemiah,  195 
Nowack,  2IO 

Obadiah,  5 1 
Omri,  177 
Origen,  329 
Ottley,  V,  164,  281 

Pashhur,  300 
Paton,  184,  198 
Paul,  St.,  157 
Pekah,  209,  213 


Peter,  St.,  324 
Peters,  201,  288 
Prophecies,  pseudepigraphic,  40 
Prophecy,  conditional,  131 

,,         predictive,  129 
Prophet ;  his  insight,  4  ff. 

,,         knowledge  of  past,  7  f. 

,,  ,,  future,  8ff. 

,,        controlofthefuture,i3fF. 

, ,         mark  on  forehead,  addn. 
note  (6),  336 

,,         as  a  revolutionist,  193  ff. 
Prophet's  dress,  68 

,,         fees,  65 
living,  64 

,,         power,  103 
Prophets  of  Ahab,  52  ff. 

,,        of  Baal,  114,  180 

,,       and  priests,  33,  280  ff. 

Ramah,  5;  addn.  note  (i),  331 

Ramoth-gilead,  11 

Razon,  213 

Rehoboam,  174 

Restoration,  128 

Rogers,  223  ff.,  234 

Roll,  burning  of,  247  f. 

Samuel,  13,  167,  274 
,,        book  of,  168 

Sanday,  104 

Sargon's  invasion,  22 1 

Saul,  5,  167 

Sayce,  214,  225 

Schultz,  54,  56,  62 

Seer,  31 

Sennacherib,  228,  234,  237 

Shebna,  230 

Shemaiah,  174 

Shishak,  175 

Shunamite,  322 

Signs,  III 

Smith,  G.  A.,  86,  199,  207 

,,      H.  P.,  33,  43.49.  171,257 
,,      W.  Robertson,   145,  204, 
287 

Solomon,  37,  172 

Spiritual  enlightenment,  25 


348 


THE    HEBREW   PROPHET 


Spiritual  influences,  lOl 
Stenography,  142 

,,  addn.  note  (8),  339 

Syro-Ephraimitish  War,  213 

Tabeel,  son  of,  209 
Temple,  305 
Theophanies,  19 
Toy,  261  f. 

Uriah,  245 


Vision,  22,  317 

Wellhausen,  84 
Winckler,  218,  223  ff. 

Zechariah,  278,  311 
Zedekiah,  251,  296 
Zephaniah,  90,  303 
Zerubbabel,  267  ff. 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   PASSAGES 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Genesis  xviii.  I7f. 

, 

9 

I  Kings 

xii.  21  ff. 

•     174 

»» 

xiii. 

.     276 

Exodus  vii.  8  ff. 

. 

118 

i> 

xvi.  I  ff. 

6 

»          X 

.  If. 

. 

32s 

>i 

xvii.  . 

.     178 

i>       i^- 

.  2-4 

III 

>> 
>» 

xviii. 
xviii.  24 

•     179 
.     114 

Numbers 

xii.  6ff. 

24 

)> 

xix.  iSf. 
XX.      . 

.     181 
.     184 

Deuteronomy  xiii.  2 

-4 

119 

i> 

XX.  38,  41 

.       72 

i> 

XVUl. 

21  f. 

123 

xxii.  . 
xxii.  5 

.     106 
12 

Judges  V. 

166 

>i 

xxii.  6 

.      53 

M          V. 

7     . 

34 

2  Kings  iii. 

.      IS 

I  Samuel 

iii.  I 

.       33 

>> 

iii.  I3ff. 

.     186 

>> 

iii.  19 

112 

>) 

iii.  15 

.      24 

»> 

vii.  . 

•       35 

>) 

iv.  27 

.     322 

i> 

ix.  5,  9 

. 

.       30 

»> 

iv.  38  ff. 

.      67 

>» 

ix.  9 

317 

>> 

vi.  6  . 

4 

i> 

ix.  9,  addn.  note 

3)334 

>' 

vi.  8ff. 

187,  189 

>> 

X.  7 

. 

168 

>> 

vi.  31 

.     188 

>> 

XV. ,  addn. 

note  ( 

0)340 

>) 

viii.  4f. 

.     185 

>> 

XV.  22 

.     275 

>» 

viii.  7ff. 

.     189 

91 

xvi. 

326 

>> 

viii.  12 

.     182 

>< 

xix.  i8ff. 

.       49 

ix. 

.     190 

)) 

xix.  20 

•       43 

)) 

ix.  8. 

.     323 

>> 

xxiii. 

.     162 

»> 

ix.  II 

.       57 

>) 

xxvi.  19 

.     304 

>> 

ix.  20 

.     183 

l> 

xxviii.  14 

.       68 

») 

xviii.  10 
xviii.  13 

.     218 
.     219 

2  Samue 

vii. 

II 

M 

xix.  6f. 

.     236 

>> 

vii.  I  ff. 

.     321 

)> 

XX.      . 

.      116,  322 

>> 

xxiv. 

.     171 

>> 

xxiii.  15  ff- 

.     276 

I  Kings  i 

•  39. 

.     173 

2  Chronicles  xxv.  i-i( 

3        .     177 

„       xi.  29 

.     173 

>i 

xxxm.  I 

?        .     139 

349 


350 


THE   HEBREW   PROPHET 


Psalms  1.  8  f.  . 

.        13,  288 

Jeremiah  xxii.  24-30  . 

.  243 

„      li.  i6f. 

.     288 

,,       xxvi. 

. 

.  299 

,,      Ixxiv.  9 

•       39 

,,       xxvi. 

17  ff.    . 

.  212 

,,      cxxxvii. 

•     304 

, ,       xxvi. 

17-19- 

.  288 

,,      cxxxvii.  7 

.     306 

,,       xxvi.  20-23 . 

.  245 

,,       xxvii. 

.  296 

Proverbs  xxvi.  i 

.     113 

, ,       xxviii. 

I 

107,  302 

,,       xxviii. 

2ff.    . 

.  301 

Isaiah  i.  11-I4 

.     292 

,,       xxviii. 

9      . 

.   123 

,,      vi.  1-9 

.       92 

, ,       xxviii. 

II     . 

.  108 

„     vi.  5ff. 

.         .     328 

,,       xxix. 

.  251 

,,      vii.  4    . 

.     215 

,,       xxxii. 

.  257 

„      vii.  II  . 

.     115 

,,       xxx.-xxxiii. 

.   158 

,,      vii.  16  . 

.     216 

, ,       xxxiv. 

8ff.   , 

•  253 

,,      viii.  2   . 

.     290 

,,       xxxvi. 

•   144 

»      viii.  3   . 

.     159 

, ,       xxxvi. 

5       • 

.   144 

,,      xiv.  28-32 

.     228 

,,       xxxvi. 

29     . 

.  246 

,,        XX. 

.     116 

,,       xxxvii 

.  19    . 

.  296 

,,        XX.   I      . 

.     222 

,,       xxxviii.  14-28 

.  327 

,,      xxii.  16 

.     231 

,,      xxviii.  7 

.     291 

Ezekiel  viii.  3 

.  260 

,,      xxix.  10 

•     319 

,       xi.  22  f. 

304, 306 

,,      XXX.  8  . 

•     IS9 

xii.  3-7 

.  262 

,,      XXX.  gf. 

•     293 

xvii.    . 

.  263 

„      xli.  21  f. 

.     124 

xxiv.  15 

ff.    ! 

.  265 

,,      xliv.  26 

•     125 

xxxvii. 

12  ff.  . 

.  265 

,,      xlviii.  127 

.     127 

„      1.  I        . 

.       89 

Ilosea  i.-iii.    . 

.  200 

„      1.  4ff.   . 

.     310 

i» 

i.  2 

87,90 

„      liii.       . 

.     308 

)9 

i-  3-9  . 

viii.  4  . 

.      86 
.     201 

Jeremiah  i.  4-10 

.      96 

>l 

ix.  7f. 

.     284 

n       "•  30 

•     239 

>l 

xi.  12  . 

.     207 

,,       iii.  6ff. 

.     241 

,,       iii.  18 

.     241 

Joel 

ii.  17 

•     314 

>>       V.  30  f. 

•     294 

»» 

ii.  28ff.     . 

.     315 

11       V.  31 

.       47 

,,       V.  3i,addn. 

note  (4)  335 

Amos  ii.  II     . 

•       44 

,,       vii.  21  f. 

•     297 

i> 

iii.  3-8 . 

.       77 

,        xi.  l-8,addn 

note  (7)338 

>i 

iii.  7     . 

10, 

126,  318 

„       xi.  18  ff. 

.     243 

>> 

iii.  7,  addn.  note  (2) ,     332 

,,       xiii.  18  f.      . 

.     248 

>> 

iii.  8 

.      84 

,,       xvii.  19  ff,    . 

.     298 

>» 

v,  21  ff. 

.     280 

,,       xviii.  21 

•     327 

»» 

vii.  12  . 

.      67 

„       XX.  3ff. 

.     301 

i> 

vii.  I2ff. 

.     282 

XX.  7fif. 

.     257 

>i 

vii.  14  f. 

.      57 

,,       xxi.  8-10     . 

.     254 

>> 

vii,  IS  . 

•      77 

INDEX   OF  SCRIPTURE   PASSAGES     351 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Amos  vii,  17  . 

•        327 

Zechariah  xiii.  2 

63 

>>     viii.  5    . 

.        280 

,,     ix.  Ilflf. 

.        200 

Malachi  ii.  14  ff. 

314 

Micah  iii.  1-4 

.      210 

St.  Matthew  vii.  21    . 

329 

»      iii.  5-7 

.      286 

„      iii.  12  . 

212,  289 

St.  Luke  i.  7° 

29 

„      vi.  1-8 

.      287 

„        vii.  36ff.       . 

6 

xiii.  33 

272 

Zephaniah  iii.  3  f. 

.      304 

,,        xiii.,  addn.  note  (i 

2)343 

Haggaii.  5-1 1 

.      310 

St.  John  iii.  2 

117 

,,      ii.  10-19 

.      311 

„        iv.  5ff. 

7 

iv.  48 

120 

Zechariah  ii.  1-5 

.      268 

M        vii.  17 

.     136 

iv.  6ff. 

.      268 

,,        X.  41 

1 29 

,,        vi.  gfif. 

.      312 

>,        vii.  5ff. 

.      313 

Acts  iii.  24 

30 

,,        viii. 

.      269 

„      X. 

324 

,,        viii.  23 

.       105 

„        xi.  3 

.         72 

Hebrews  xi.  36  ff. 

272 

PI.VMOL'TH 

WILLIAM    BRENDON    AND   SON,    LIMITED 

PRINTERS 


Date  Due 


